Could not complete request over quota errors

[John Wade]

Hi Earl,

Not sure if our messages crossed,  so I repeat some below if I was not clear
before.

The key advantage to my hack is that quota behaviour is the same as normal except
for one key exception,  users can copy to Trash when over quota.    They can not
append or copy to other mailboxes or append to Trash and deliveries to the mailbox
will be deferred, just as with normal quota behavior.

They can maliciously use up an infinite amount of space by copying repeatedly from
other mailboxes to Trash, but they can not use the mailbox normally since no new
mail is delivered until the over quota problem is rectified.    For some people
this may be an acceptable security risk if they use another mechanism to identify
mailboxes significantly overquota (we use a cron script for this.)

Hope this clarifies,

John Wade

Earl R Shannon wrote:

> Hello,
>
> How does this change affect quota management? The answer
> to that question would help answer whether or not it has
> the same effect as setting an infinite quota on a trash
> folder.
>
> Which, if you have quotas set for users, would be a bad
> idea. If my inbox has 100 MB of quota but my Trash folder
> has no quota ( infinite ) then once I hit 100 MB in my inbox
> I can simply store messages in my Trash folder. Nothing says
> I have to removed them simply because they are in the Trash
> folder. So why have quotas at all in such a case? The only
> remedy I see here is for a periodic job that removes all
> the messages in Trash folders. Something I would hesitate
> to do. In my mind the user must be responsible and be the
> only person removing messages from their account.
>
> While trying to solve percieved problems with as little
> impact on users is a great idea, sometimes you just have
> to expect the user to know something. Trash cans in the
> real world fill up if they don't get emptied. Same
> thing happens on Windows and Mac desktops. Why would we
> want to change this in IMAP? User education, in my opinion,
> is the correct answer for this problem.
>
> Regards,
> Earl Shannon
>
> Christian Schulte wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 6. August 2003 01:12 schrieb John Wade:
> >
> >>diff index.c index.c.org
> >>1220,1228c1220
> >>< /* next lines changed to allow copy to Trash when usr over quota */
> >>< /* jwidera jwade 6/27/03 lets users "move to Trash" when over quota */
> >><
> >><     if ( strstr(name,".Trash") ) {
> >><        r = append_setup(&append_mailbox, name, MAILBOX_FORMAT_NORMAL,
> >><                    imapd_userid, imapd_authstate, ACL_INSERT, -1);
> >><     }
> >><     else {
> >><        r = append_setup(&append_mailbox, name, MAILBOX_FORMAT_NORMAL,
> >>---
> >>
> >>
> >>>    r = append_setup(&append_mailbox, name, MAILBOX_FORMAT_NORMAL,
> >>
> >>1230d1221
> >><     }
> >
> >
> > Does it support unixhierarchysep ? Can you tell me the difference to just
> > setting an infinite quota on the trash folder ? What do you win with it ? I
> > cannot see any improvement to what is possible with quota...
> >
> > If you would set an infinite quota on the trash folder, whouldn't that behave
> > exactly the same ?
> >
> > --Christian
> >
> >