Le 08.01.2005 02:31:44, Pawel Salek a écrit :
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 had already coded once virtual folders. It basically boils down to hack a bit the balsa index code, and it is possible to gather all messages from specified source mailboxes matching certain filters. So if you want to do a virtual trash, I guess we could as well do the full blown virtual folders. IIRC it was not too hard, but that was only a preliminary version so perhaps to do it really correctly asks a bit more time ;-)
Description: PGP signature