Bug 36382
Summary: | Postfix passes mailbox_size_limit to LDA as rlimit | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Retired] Red Hat Powertools | Reporter: | Damien Miller <djm> |
Component: | postfix | Assignee: | Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 7.1 | CC: | dr |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | i386 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2001-04-20 13:01:00 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Damien Miller
2001-04-18 00:06:28 UTC
AFAIK that's just intended behaviour. That's what mailbox_size_limit is for in the first place. It wasn't expected behaviour in any case (I would expect an implicit size limit to apply only to postfix's own LDA), and it was painful to debug because procmail doesn't log errno for failed writes to mboxes even in verbose mode. intended (by the author) != expected (by the user) We had this discussion on postfix-user mailinglist. Wietse's mails lead me to the claim that it is _intended_ behaviour by the author. If you want to have different semantics you've got to contact Wietse (wietse) or even better discuss on postfix-users mailing list. I still think RESOLVED/NOTABUG is the correct resolution. BTW: you can disable the limit by mailbox_size_limit = 0 |