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. >>> 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. >>> 3- if you can queue mail, you can deliver it ;-p >>> 4- disks don't cost too much now. > > true, but when you have >10k users, the cost of each "not so > expensive" hard drive starts to add, and not only that, in a public > organization you can have wait-times of around 6 months just to get a > hard drive. Oh, and don't forget: you have plug these hard drives > somewhere: every server has they "hard drives limit", and you could > take a PC and lots of SATA controllers, and build a nice low-cost > NAS-like thing, but a few people qualify this as "unreliable", they > need to spend lots of money on IBM or HP storage systems, and because > of the cost, they just don't buy them, and thus: we have a limited > amount of disk space :( . > Agreed. >>> 5- if your users abuse mail, destroy their heads, not ours. > > mmmm........ I don't think my boss let me do that, jejejeje :D > you must make it look like an accident :) > c-ya! > > Ildefonso.
