On 2011-03-14 10:41:16 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote: > On 2011-03-14 10:34 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > But there's also mailbox_size_limit to track. Wouldn't it be better > > to set both mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit to much > > larger values (or zero) and modify message_size_limit only, so that > > one can focus to one parameter only? > > Imo, zero/unlimited is *never* a good idea...
Why (for mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit)? I assume that the only goal of the limits mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit was to avoid getting a full disk. But as said, such limits are mostly ineffective for the maildir format. So, setting them to zero doesn't change very much, IMHO. > Sounds to me like your best option is to leave everything but > message_size_limit to their defaults, and set it accordingly. Yes, after making sure that mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit have not been modified by the config file provided by some 3rd-party distribution. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
