sievefilter if user overquota (was :quota check befor sieve script?)

[Michael Menge]

Hi,

I had a look at rfc2033. It is possible to send an individual returncode
after the DATA stage for each recipient.

So befor I try to patch the lmtpd, i would like to discus, which is
the desired/expected behavior. To make discussion easier lets think about
common usecases.


1. discard:
      We use Spamassassin to mark spams. The user has the choise to discard
      them or to sort them into a folder depending on the spam score.
      So we don't want bounce-messages to faked email addresses if the
      message would be discard. So if only the discard action is performd
      we should return 250 2.1.5 Ok

2. redirect:
      Some Users forward there Messages to other accounts. (They may be
      over Quota as the sort some mails into other folders). If the only
      action that would be performed on a message is "redirect" I would
      forward the message and return 250 2.1.5 Ok

3. redirect+fileinto/keep:
      This is a tricky case. If a fileinto/keep and a redirect action would
      be performed i see the following options
          a. perform redirect, but NOT fileinto/keep and return 250 2.1.5 Ok
             This means the Message is not stored localy and if
             redirections fails the recipient nor the sender are informed.
          b. perform redirect, remember message id and redirection and return
             452 4.2.2 Over quota / 552 5.2.2 Over quota (remembering is not
             needed in case of perm errors)
             We need to implement an other Database for this.
          c. perform NO action and return 452 4.2.2 Over quota
             or 552 5.2.2 Over quota.

4. discard+fileinto/keep
      I don't think this is a common usescase, but it may happen as a mail may
      match multiple rules. I would like to handle this case in the same way as
      Case 3. but I think in this case we can't return 250 2.1.5 Ok as we don't
      keep a copy.

Are there other Usescases/Options we should think of?

I also had a look at the sieve rfc3028, but I'm not sure if it is helpfull.
rfc3028 mentions in section "2.10.6 Errors"

      Implementations MAY choose to do a full parse, then evaluate the
      script, then do all actions.  Implementations might even go so far as
      to ensure that execution is atomic (either all actions are executed
      or none are executed).

      Other implementations may choose to parse and run at the same time.
      Such implementations are simpler, but have issues with partial
      failure (some actions happen, others don't).

      ...

      This specification allows any of these approaches.  Solving the
      Halting Problem is considered extra credit.

      When an error happens, implementations MUST notify the user that an
      error occurred, which actions (if any) were taken, and do an implicit
      keep.

Is "Over Quota" a runtime error? And if how can we notify the user or
sender without using more space?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.Menge                                 Tel.: (49) 7071/29-70316
Universitaet Tuebingen                  Fax.: (49) 7071/29-5912
Zentrum fuer Datenverarbeitung          mail:
michael.menge at zdv.uni-tuebingen.de
Waechterstrasse 76
72074 Tuebingen



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5339 bytes
Desc: S/MIME krytographische Unterschrift
Url : http://lists.andrew.cmu.edu/pipermail/info-cyrus/attachments/20080131/2d66d652/attachment.bin