dovecot - Sep 2009 - Question regarding reverse quota_warning

Hi Everyone,

I have a question regarding reverse quota_warnings. I'm building a new
setup, and I would like to block sending messages if a person is over
his/her quota limit. Although this can be accomplished using a
quota_warning script, I can't find how to accomplish the reverse. Has
anyone tried to do something like this?

By looking at the source code:

---- quote ----
if ((bytes_before < (uint64_t)warnings[i].rule.bytes_limit &&
     bytes_current >= (uint64_t)warnings[i].rule.bytes_limit) ||
    (count_before < (uint64_t)warnings[i].rule.count_limit &&
     count_current >= (uint64_t)warnings[i].rule.count_limit)) {
	quota_warning_execute(root, warnings[i].command);
	break;
}
----- /quote -----

I think it could be as simple as adding a second if statement and prefixing
a string, but that's not a very clean solution.

Best regards,

Jeroen Koekkoek

On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 14:37 +0200, jeroen at intuxicated.org
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I have a question regarding reverse quota_warnings. I'm building a new
> setup, and I would like to block sending messages if a person is over
> his/her quota limit.
Well, users typically are never over quota. They're just a few kilobytes
under quota.. I guess you could use 99% as the limit when to start
blocking messages.
>  Although this can be accomplished using a
> quota_warning script, I can't find how to accomplish the reverse. Has
> anyone tried to do something like this?
> 
> By looking at the source code:
> 
> ---- quote ----
> if ((bytes_before < (uint64_t)warnings[i].rule.bytes_limit &&
>      bytes_current >= (uint64_t)warnings[i].rule.bytes_limit) ||
>     (count_before < (uint64_t)warnings[i].rule.count_limit &&
>      count_current >= (uint64_t)warnings[i].rule.count_limit)) {
> 	quota_warning_execute(root, warnings[i].command);
> 	break;
> }
> ----- /quote -----
> 
> I think it could be as simple as adding a second if statement and prefixing
> a string, but that's not a very clean solution.
Yeah, similar second if statement should work. I can't think of any
really nice and clean way to do this, so I think I'm not going to add
that feature until more people want it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20090913/fe981ac9/attachment-0002.bin>