Philip wrote
>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
>> >> Any plans on making this work with maildir?
>> >
>> >No.
>> >
>> Bummer. I presume this rather categorical statement includes any
>> patches, no matter how finely crafted, supplied to you?
>
>No it does not. It means *I* have no plans to do anything at this point
>in time. If somebody sends me a patch, I will take a look (when I have
>time) and see if I think it is worth including.
>
Ah, swell!
I guess the least intrusive and KISS approach will be favored, too. :)
Revisiting what I wrote yesterday and considering what the most likely
rationale behind using a quota_<time> retry rule (to give people that
are actively using their mailbox a grace period, defined by a subsequent
quota retry rule, in which to remove mails and make space), I'm gonna
try for the following, provided nobody stops me with a very good
argument:
Just base the last access time of a maildir mailbox on the last
modify time of the "new" directory. Obviously this is either the last
time exim was able to deliver an email (classic case of mailbox slowly
filling up) or the last time the user/client did read a new message.
This of course does not check for users/clients reading or moving around
old emails, but then again a user with a _full_ mailbox just staring
blankly at the never changing picture or a client auto-connecting every
5 minutes and leaving the mails on the server makes very little practical
difference to a totally inert user.
Regards,
Christian Balzer
--
Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer NOC
chibi@??? Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Network Services
http://www.gol.com/
