On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:06:15 -0000, Aaron Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >> Hm couldn't setquota be implemented using a default answer > >> as described in the RFC: > >> "NO - setquota error: can't set that data" > > > > Sounds easy enough. Ilja, what's your take? > > What's the problem with setting quotas? Are these per-mailbox quotas that > we're worried about? Do we at least have a column to hold the necessary > info?
We *do* have the column to set it. I'll have a look at the RFC, to see what's needed for the SETQUOTA command. If we can't do that without changing too much, then the solution proposed by Wolfram is the way to go for now. Ilja Ilja
