Could not complete request over quota errors

[Marc Groot Koerkamp]

Rob Siemborski said:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Marc Groot Koerkamp wrote:
>
>> What happens when I create a sub of inbox. What quota does apply to that
>> sub or does the sub has no quota?
>>
>> according the rfc:
>>    Each mailbox has zero or more implementation-defined named "quota
>>    roots".  Each quota root has zero or more resource limits.  All
>>    mailboxes that share the same named quota root share the resource
>>    limits of the quota root.
>>
>> that make me think that INBOX and INBOX.Trash share the same named quota
>> and therefor raising the quota on inbox.Trash doesn't help. (I could be
>> wrong, I never used quotas)
>
> No, some implementations might inheret, others might override (that is, a
> new quota root would override all previous roots).  Cyrus does the later.
>

Ok thnx for the clarification. I'll start experimenting with it.

>> But to come back to the QUOTA idea. It's probably not a good idea. Much
>> better would be to write an RFC for IMAP MOVE. But that's discussed
>> before
>> if I'm correct.
>
> IMAP MOVE is very difficult in IMAP for a variety of reasons.  One is
> transactionality,  One is preservation of UIDs (which is important if you
> want to undo a move).
>
> Here's a previous thread:
>
> http://www.washington.edu/imap/listarch/current/msg00629.html
>

OK, I forget the move idea. So we are back to where we started. The client
should notify the user that it needs to empty Trash first or offer
permanent delete by setting the flag and expunge the individual message by
using it's uid (in case of UIDPLUS)

Regards,

Marc Groot Koerkamp.