On 2011-03-14 11:30:14 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote: > On 2011-03-14 11:12 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2011-03-14 10:41:16 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote: > >> Imo, zero/unlimited is *never* a good idea... > > > Why (for mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit)? > > Because... *unlimited* *anything* is never a good idea... too much > room for error.
That's only a point of view. One can have a different one: Having some ineffective limit is not a good idea either: one can easily forget that the limit is ineffective. Setting such a limit to unlimited makes this clear. > > 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. > > In what way is this different from what I said? I didn't say 'the > distro's default', I said 'their defaults'... meaning, the defaults > as defined by the software's author(s). I mean that if one sets mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit explicitly, one would avoid such problems. Another similar problem is that not setting mailbox_size_limit and virtual_mailbox_limit can lead to incorrect configuration in the future (perhaps 50 MB is very large for a message today, but in 10 years?). If I set them explicitly to some value (which could be the sams as default or not, this no longer matters), the configuration can be checked by some validation script by comparing parameter values that depend on each other. -- 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)
