Quotas vs. Trash revisited

[Rob McMahon]

Joseph Brennan wrote:

>
>> It occurred to me, though, that if we made the user.xxx.Trash folder a
>> separate quota root with the same quota as their inbox these problems
>> would go away.  Can anyone see any problems with this ?
>
>
>
> Might as well just double their quota.  They could create a whole
> set of archive mailboxes under Trash, right?

Sorry, I missed out a piece of the puzzle, which was to automatically 
expire trash with ipurge after 7 days (and announce the fact of course).

> - People who archive mail in Trash.  Our helpdesk reports people
> asking for backup restores on their trash on a regular basis.

That'll be announced as a no-no.

> - People who don't use a trash folder but name a folder trash for
> some other reason.  Is there a band named Trash?  We've seen people
> keeping mail about Columbia's Core Corriculum in folders named core.
> Imagine if we removed old core dumps regularly.

The adivertised interface is SquirrelMail, Trash is one of the 
auto-created folders.  If people want to get themselves into doggy 
do-do, they have many and more interesting ways to do so.  For the 
casual user who ignores the "you're getting close to your limit" meter 
on the web front end, it could save some grief.

Cheers,

Rob

-- 
E-Mail:	Rob.McMahon at warwick.ac.uk		PHONE:  +44 24 7652 3037
Rob McMahon, IT Services, Warwick University, Coventry, CV4 7AL, England