search for: bytes_befor

...@@ -1163,6 +1163,8 @@ static void quota_warnings_execute(struct quota_transaction_context *ctx, &count_current, &count_limit) < 0) return; + quota_root_recalculate_relative_rules(root->set, bytes_limit, count_limit); + bytes_before = bytes_current - ctx->bytes_used; count_before = count_current - ctx->count_used; for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {

...etup, 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, warni...

...;> quota_transaction_context *ctx, >> &count_current, &count_limit) < 0) >> return; >> >> + quota_root_recalculate_relative_rules(root->set, bytes_limit, >> count_limit); >> + >> bytes_before = bytes_current - ctx->bytes_used; >> count_before = count_current - ctx->count_used; >> for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { > Hi, > this patch realy fix the bug in quota_warning. Is it possible to add > this patch to the next release ? > Hi, I saw that...

...ota_warnings_execute(struct > quota_transaction_context *ctx, > &count_current, &count_limit) < 0) > return; > > + quota_root_recalculate_relative_rules(root->set, bytes_limit, > count_limit); > + > bytes_before = bytes_current - ctx->bytes_used; > count_before = count_current - ctx->count_used; > for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { Hi, this patch realy fix the bug in quota_warning. Is it possible to add this patch to the next release ? -- Pozdrawiam / Best Regards Micha? Gi?y?...

...I have the feeling Dovecot is generating the warning event twice. When getting from e.g. 50% to 79% and when the usage is lowered from 87% to 70%. I have the feeling this is either not the correct behavior, or I'm misinformed. When looking at the source, this shouldn't be happening: 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...