Re: Balsa 2.2.0 end user impressions

[Carlos Morgado <chbm gnome org>]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:23:00, Joacher wrote:
> Peter Bloomfield wrote:
>
> > It (outbox) can be serverside--there's no technical obstacle.  We'd just   
> > need some way to make sure that even a novice user understands  the risk.
>
> How about a a regular imap "outbox" in case the SMTP is down, and a local  
> "fallback-box" in case SMTP _and_ IMAP is down.

No, that's too much trouble. Outbox is an empty file 99.9% of the time, it's  
not a real mailbox. It makes no sense at all to put on IMAP "just because".

(history of outbox: pre-2.1 we needed a copy of the message on disk to send.
we place the message on a mbox type file and deleted after the send was  
confirm so the user could always find the message if there was some problem.)
on 2.1 we don't even need an outbox any more but it's still nice to have for  
the same reason.

If outbox bothers you so much place it on ~/.balsa or /tmp, we don't care :)
We *could* make outbox disapear from the mblist, that's not hard but i'm not  
exactly sure that makes sense. Opinions ?

And if you're not convinced yet, try not confused outbox and sentbox ;)

--
Carlos Morgado - chbm(a)ma.ssive.net - http://chbm.net/ 
0x1FC57F0A FP:0A27 35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A