Re: 'Delete' v. 'Move to trash'

On 01/08/2005 04:43:00 AM, Craig Routledge wrote:
Besides, I do not quite get why one would want to have a physically separate folder for trash. In other words: why Mailbox/Hide/(Un)deleted does not work as a quick switch between mailbox and associated trash. Is it that such messages are deleted on close, or there is some other reason? Because if this is the problem, I can imagine expunging only when "empty Trash on exit" option is set. Opinions?

Hmmm ... I'm not sure I understand some of the distinctions.

I have a separate trash file because it's setup by the wizard/druid at first startup. I've never had the use of an IMAP maildrop, so I've never had to manage mail that way and don't know how it works in practice. Everything has always been local files for me.

OK, I understand. One can imagine the approach I recommend would be good for local systems too: instead of copying 20MB message to trash (and occupying double the space, unless maildir format would be used and tricks with linking, which we do not do now), it would have just have flag toggled. On can imagine the "Trash" folder being just a way to show deleted messages in current folder. This could save some resources if need be (no need to copy stuff). The only difficult thing to do would be to have such a virtual "Trash" folder to display messages from all the folders. Anyway, I am just toying with ideas here. I can imagine that people are just used to a model where trash is a separate mailbox.

I'm guessing that moving messages between folders on a remote machine via IMAP is something people don't like doing much, hence the need for toggling a delete flag instead. Is that why?

Actually, if the trash folder was remote, copying the message to trash would be just as easy - the only problem is that copy may fail if quota limits would be exceeded.

Are you suggesting getting rid of the whole move-to-trash method of
deleting mail?

I would be fine with it - but I would like to know what other people think about this - perhaps it is too radical.

How I like to work is to have all messages that I choose to "delete"
go away immediately, to some place I can recover them from if I hit the key on the wrong message or some such. I have Trash automatically purged at exit. Granted, I could unhide tagged-deleted message them to do the same sort of immediate recovery. But right now that requires that I open up the preferences dialog and do a lot of clicking. I suppose if the hide/unhide deleted messages menu item was given a single-key binding I could dispense with the trash file and all move-to-trash functions.

Such a shorcut could be arranged for.

 I think this
whole idea of two different ways of "deleting" messages is prone to causing some confusion.

Yes, you are right in your analysis. Another difference between real (move-to-trash) and virtual (mark-as-deleted) trash models is that virtual trash folders are easiest to expunge on mailbox close: making them expunge messages on balsa exit may require opening them again, which may be time-consuming.

What I would like to know is whether such an idea is not too radical: I mean would it not be a too big shock for a person who has just switched from another program? For a complete beginner? I cannot tell myself.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]