[Dovecot] Changing Quota downward for special Mailboxes? (2.1.6)
It seems there is no way to correct te quota limit downward for some mailboxes, like:
quota_rule9 = UCE-TMP:storage=-10%%
The idea is to not eat up the users storage with spam, so that spam stays in the queue (for some time) while real mail gets delivered.
There *is* a line
} else if (*value != '-' && relative_rule) {in quota.c, but nothing else handles it, starting with quota_rule_parse_percentage.
Yours Jost Krieger
| Jost.Krieger+sig@ruhr-uni-bochum.de Please help stamp out spam! | | Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machine at RUB Comp. Center | | Sincere words are not sweet, sweet words are not sincere. | | Lao Tse, Tao Te King 81 |
On 18.9.2012, at 14.40, Jost Krieger wrote:
It seems there is no way to correct te quota limit downward for some mailboxes, like:
quota_rule9 = UCE-TMP:storage=-10%%
The idea is to not eat up the users storage with spam, so that spam stays in the queue (for some time) while real mail gets delivered.
Interesting idea. This was pretty easy to fix:
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/74d639b2a5bf
Now, the next problem is that if LDA can't save the message to UCE-TMP because of quota failure it saves it to INBOX. I'm not really sure how that should be fixed, since generally it's a good idea to do it..
Am 18.09.2012 18:17, schrieb Timo Sirainen:
On 18.9.2012, at 14.40, Jost Krieger wrote:
It seems there is no way to correct te quota limit downward for some mailboxes, like:
quota_rule9 = UCE-TMP:storage=-10%%
The idea is to not eat up the users storage with spam, so that spam stays in the queue (for some time) while real mail gets delivered.
Interesting idea. This was pretty easy to fix:
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/74d639b2a5bf
Now, the next problem is that if LDA can't save the message to UCE-TMP because of quota failure it saves it to INBOX. I'm not really sure how that should be fixed, since generally it's a good idea to do it..
some allready existing way is i.e with milter and postfix tagged spam get in hold queue for i.e human admin investigate, or some quarantaine with amavis for sure there are benefits getting dovecot involved in spam tagging but i would leave spam tagging to the mailserver in first way and deliver it to Junk folder by global sieve rule with giving more quota or ignoring Quota to Junk folder, but i see this isnt the same what you might wanna goal
-- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
On Tue 18 Sep 2012 07:47:09 PM GMT, Robert Schetterer wrote:
some allready existing way is i.e with milter and postfix tagged spam get in hold queue for i.e human admin investigate, or some quarantaine with amavis
Human admin is not a good idea if you have 50000 users :-) Quarantine's a possibility, but that's taking it out of "Mail" and adds complexity.
for sure there are benefits getting dovecot involved in spam tagging but i would leave spam tagging to the mailserver in first way and deliver it to Junk folder by global sieve rule with giving more quota or ignoring Quota to Junk folder, but i see this isnt the same what you might wanna goal
That's just what we want to do, *but* although it's in the Wiki I don't think it a good idea to *raise* the limit for the junk folder if you *deliver* to it. It's somewhat ok if you move mail there and someone picks it up (we do that with a different folder). But on delivery it means at some point you can receive spam but no real messages. Not nice.
"ignore" may work if it does what I think (never even count bytes and messages in this folder) but it is open to abuse ...
Yours Jost Krieger
| Jost.Krieger+sig@ruhr-uni-bochum.de Please help stamp out spam! | | Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machine at RUB Comp. Center | | Sincere words are not sweet, sweet words are not sincere. | | Lao Tse, Tao Te King 81 |
Am 19.09.2012 14:53, schrieb Jost Krieger:
On Tue 18 Sep 2012 07:47:09 PM GMT, Robert Schetterer wrote:
some allready existing way is i.e with milter and postfix tagged spam get in hold queue for i.e human admin investigate, or some quarantaine with amavis
Human admin is not a good idea if you have 50000 users :-) Quarantine's a possibility, but that's taking it out of "Mail" and adds complexity.
as ever ,this is different in different places specially Quarantine is wide used
for sure there are benefits getting dovecot involved in spam tagging but i would leave spam tagging to the mailserver in first way and deliver it to Junk folder by global sieve rule with giving more quota or ignoring Quota to Junk folder, but i see this isnt the same what you might wanna goal
That's just what we want to do, *but* although it's in the Wiki I don't think it a good idea to *raise* the limit for the junk folder if you *deliver* to it. It's somewhat ok if you move mail there and someone picks it up (we do that with a different folder). But on delivery it means at some point you can receive spam but no real messages. Not nice.
"ignore" may work if it does what I think (never even count bytes and messages in this folder) but it is open to abuse ...
there is no good or evil to this case, its a design question which may change in different places,, the abuse case might be acceptable, as the Junk folder i.e is imap special used autoconfigured and has auto empty feature, i give 50 mb plus quota on Junk folder and delete mail older then 3 month there
Yours Jost Krieger
-- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
On Wed 19 Sep 2012 04:03:45 PM GMT, Robert Schetterer wrote:
as ever ,this is different in different places specially Quarantine is wide used
Of course, it's often useful.
there is no good or evil to this case, its a design question which may change in different places,, the abuse case might be acceptable, as the Junk folder i.e is imap special used autoconfigured and has auto empty feature, i give 50 mb plus quota on Junk folder and delete mail older then 3 month there
The abuse may be tolerable, but I just don't get how your +50M works. For me it would mean that someone with a large Junk folder just wouldn't get an more mail except something delivered straight to Junk. And if you don't deliver to Junk but the clients move stuff there, there's still a problem. I'm justing raising the limit for folders that clients use for deleting (like Trash or whatever it is called).
Yours Jost Krieger
| Jost.Krieger+sig@ruhr-uni-bochum.de Please help stamp out spam! | | Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machine at RUB Comp. Center | | Sincere words are not sweet, sweet words are not sincere. | | Lao Tse, Tao Te King 81 |
Am 19.09.2012 16:25, schrieb Jost Krieger:
On Wed 19 Sep 2012 04:03:45 PM GMT, Robert Schetterer wrote:
as ever ,this is different in different places specially Quarantine is wide used
Of course, it's often useful.
there is no good or evil to this case, its a design question which may change in different places,, the abuse case might be acceptable, as the Junk folder i.e is imap special used autoconfigured and has auto empty feature, i give 50 mb plus quota on Junk folder and delete mail older then 3 month there
The abuse may be tolerable, but I just don't get how your +50M works.
the situation isnt really comparable, the plus is more configured for copy by human to i.e Junk folder, or i.e a client filter does this auto
it makes most sense with trash, so user should mostly able to copy to trash, even if they have got full quota, this should avoid some errors in clients
http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Quota/Configuration ... quota_rule = *:storage=1G quota_rule2 = Trash:storage=+100M quota_rule3 = SPAM:ignore ...
For me it would mean that someone with a large Junk folder just wouldn't get an more mail except something delivered straight to Junk. And if you don't deliver to Junk but the clients move stuff there,
with auto loosing mail after some time in my setup which is the anounced policy, Trash and Junk are "autodeleted" folders no mail there ,rests forever *g
there's still a
problem. I'm justing raising the limit for folders that clients use for deleting (like Trash or whatever it is called).
as i said its a design question, your policy is ok too
no flame ,having your idea as alternative is always fine to have
Yours Jost Krieger
-- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
On Tue 18 Sep 2012 07:17:50 PM GMT, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 18.9.2012, at 14.40, Jost Krieger wrote: ...
The idea is to not eat up the users storage with spam, so that spam stays in the queue (for some time) while real mail gets delivered.
Interesting idea. This was pretty easy to fix:
Thank you!
Now, the next problem is that if LDA can't save the message to UCE-TMP because of quota failure it saves it to INBOX. I'm not really sure how that should be fixed, since generally it's a good idea to do it..
Oops, that's not what I want!
How about another command line parameter for lda to suppress the emergency save? We know exactly when we are trying to save probable spam.
Yours Jost Krieger
| Jost.Krieger+sig@ruhr-uni-bochum.de Please help stamp out spam! | | Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machine at RUB Comp. Center | | Sincere words are not sweet, sweet words are not sincere. | | Lao Tse, Tao Te King 81 |
On Wed 19 Sep 2012 02:52:41 PM GMT, Jost Krieger wrote:
Oops, that's not what I want!
How about another command line parameter for lda to suppress the emergency save? We know exactly when we are trying to save probable spam.
I've tried my luck. Would the attached patch be sensible and welcome?
Yours Jost Krieger
| Jost.Krieger+sig@ruhr-uni-bochum.de Please help stamp out spam! | | Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machine at RUB Comp. Center | | Sincere words are not sweet, sweet words are not sincere. | | Lao Tse, Tao Te King 81 |
participants (3)
-
Jost Krieger
-
Robert Schetterer
-
Timo Sirainen