Re: RFC mailbox interface

["M . Thielker" <balsa t-data com>]

Hi,

On 2001.11.26 11:59 Carlos Morgado wrote:
> i don't see any way around this except keeping mailbox handles at all time
> 
Well, actually there would be ways - but they are too involved for my 
taste. It would greatly complicate the message structure and require even 
more nonstandard data to be added to mailboxes - might wind up having more 
X-* headers than anyone would want.

I don't like software that shows deleted messages anywhere but in the trash 
can. When I delete from my inbox, I want the message to vanish from the 
index, because it would get too cluttered otherwise. So, for me, that is 
not a viable option.
If a VFolder is a reference always, the user would not make assumptions 
about the persistence of messages in it, so I guess copy-on-delete and 
VFolders having real message data associated with them will have to be 
dropped to keep things simple.
What I _do_ like, and would want to keep is the unique ID on each message 
and a mechanism to load the "closest" copy, the one from the fastest 
storage that has it available.
Also, maybe there's a way to track message moves and adjust the references 
so that moving a message between _real_ folders does not make it disappear 
from a VFolder. That should be possible to do if the requirement is made 
that the VFolders (the persistent ones) _must_ be stored on a local 
filesystem.

> and then you get fun situations like not being able to delete messages
> while being disconected ...
> 
Right, see above, it would be possible to do all of that, but would cause 
more bloat than Outlook has...

Melanie