On Fri, 12 Nov 1999, Tabor J. Wells wrote:
> > Getting back to the original case of this, my personal beleief is that
> > "user mailbox full" should result in a 5xx error anyway. If my user is
> > trying to send mail to your user, and you have imposed a quota on your
> > user, why the heck should *my* MTA have to serve as a queue for your
> > over-quota user? Either say 5xx and let my user call yours on the phone
> > to complain about it, or accept the thing and queue it on YOUR server
> > until they clear out their mail.
Yes, I would agree with that.
> Funny, I'd say the exact opposite. Being over quota is a transient error
> and should be treated as such IMO.
Indeed, but your server should take the strain for your users.
> The one thing that angered my users more than anything else was when I
> had sendmail running (delivering with procmail) and it bouncing mail to
> users that were over quota.
>
> But I guess this is one of those religious issues that should be avoided.
Exim tries to be flexible on this one. It accepts the message, but you
can arrange for a zero retry time if you like. This gives immediate
bouncing, rather than queueing on the remote host. Or you can let it sit
on your server for a while. What I do on the hosts here here is to
bounce immediately if the user's mailbox hasn't been read for a week
(yes, Exim allows you to do that) - otherwise to hang on to the message
for a couple of days and retry fairly often.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
