Vincent Lefevre put forth on 3/14/2011 11:17 AM: > On 2011-03-14 11:04:02 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> Vincent Lefevre put forth on 3/14/2011 9:34 AM: >> >>> 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? >> >> I already answered this question, interestingly, just yesterday: > > No, you didn't.
My answer starts 2 (non-blank) lines below. How can you state this in direct contradiction to the record? >> Stan Hoeppner put forth on 3/13/2011 7:52 AM: >> >>>> If you use virtual_mailbox_limit with strictly maildir mailboxes, you >>>> may as well set message_size_limit=0 and leave it alone, so you only >>>> have one setting to keep track of. >> >> You may be better off forgetting all of this nonsense, and implementing >> real quota management in your LDA or filesystem, as was already >> suggested by multiple people, including myself. >> >> Is there something preventing you from doing so? > > I'm not interested in filesystem quotas (at least for the moment), > just to increase the default message size limit. Your original question of 3/12 was about mailbox size limits, not message size limits. > Quotas by client IP or something like that could even be better, > but I don't think this was suggested, and how can this be done? Exactly what are you asking here? Are you trying to limit what emails come into your system via the internet, or limiting how much data is written to user mail storage? It would probably help this thread going forward if you would describe some kind of overall goal, instead of "flying in the weeds". -- Stan
