hi! On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:18 AM, Rocco Scappatura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:49 AM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa a écrit : >> > >> >>> However, Postfix supports access maps that can reject mail for >> >>> over-quota users, if you are willing to periodically add up all >> >>> the mail each user has. >> >> >> >> I have been using filesystem quotas for this purpose, and it works >> >> just fine. Off course, I have a "dedicated" filesystem for mail >> >> storage. >> >> >> > >> > The problem is that this is detected at delivery time, which will >> cause >> > backscatter if it happens too often and your filter misses a lot of >> > spam. if this doesn't happen often, then yes, it's the easy way. >> > otherwise, an access check as suggested by Wietse may be necessary. >> >> True, that's why I try to implement many "quota warning" systems, so >> the user knows that he/she have to clean their mailbox, also, there is >> a side-effect to the fs quota: it is pretty much likely that the imap >> server (dovecot) fail to access the user mailbox once the hard limit >> is over (unless you fix it, but I didn't), and they just call support, >> and then one tells them to clean up the mailbox asap, and just >> "reenable" the access (by deleting a couple of dovecot's files, and >> extending their quota for a while). >> >> Well, I also try to have a good spam filter (ASSP). >> >> > >> >>>> 2- there is no safe quota support in any MTA. most quota >> implementations >> >>>> will send a bounce, which may resultin backscatter >> >> >> >> true. but quotas are necessary: the more disk space the users have, >> >> the more garbage they store. >> >> >> > >> > but this doesn't require checking quota in real time or at delivery >> > time. populating an access list (periodically or opportunistically) >> > should be enough. >> >> maybe, but can also prove to be slow, and even more when you have >> thousands of users. I think that... maybe... using soft-quotas (as a >> counter) and having unlimited hard-quota and grace periods could have >> a similar effect, and can be faster (I don't know if this actually >> works, I hasn't tried) >> > > Infact, this is exactly the problem that I have. I'm using Postfix as > post-office platform too. And I need to check disk usage. First time I ve > patched with VDA patch. Then I have upgraded postfix and I have no more > appliad the relative patch. Indeed I read that is not good to use VDA patch > so I have believed that that there was a native support for quota by Postfix. > Anyway I share the fact that MTA has not to face quota issues, as mouss > pointed out in a previous email. But I have to check quota exactly for the > same needs that you have exposed. Have you a pratical alternative to VDA > patch to suggest me?
Well.... I don't know, I just installed Postfix, and configured fs quota (Debian GNU/Linux), and it just worked. I also use Dovecot, and configured the quota plug-in and used the fs backend, just to let the webmail app get quota info and show a nice "quota bar". I also run "warnquota" from a cron job every day at 08:00, to send a warning mail to overquota users (over soft quota, off course).
