> Obviously, this kind of change could be made. But I would want to make > it an option, because I'm not convinced it would be what people
> generally want. However, your example is not convincing. Once one "so
> urgent" message has got through, the next one fails. Where do you stop?
> Either you limit the mailbox or you don't.
Correctly. If people want larger quotas, they should talk to the responsible
person. Quotas are there for a reason and if you feel people should be able
to get around them, then don't use quotas. A "diskhog of the week" list is
quite effective for work groups. :)
> What do other people on the list think? Are there any more of you who
> would find an option to make Exim behave in this way useful?
I like the current implementation of quota being a hard limit very much,
because it is easy to understand, even by end users.
> Personally, I feel that this is too much fancy creeping featurism. Users
> should be made aware of mailbox limits and pay attention to them.
>
> [I note that at least one free email provider puts up a message saying
> "You have used x% of your mailbox" when you connect. This seems like a
> the right sort of idea.]
Good idea, but since most windows mail clients don't pay attention to any
dialog message, I suppose the message will never be seen by typical users.
