Re: Virtual Trash Folder
- From: Pawel Salek <pawsa theochem kth se>
- To: balsa-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Virtual Trash Folder
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:10:47 +0000
On 09/18/2005 05:01:41 PM, Craig Routledge wrote:
Back in Januray there was a thread entitled
"Re: 'Delete' v. 'Move to trash'".
for the start of the thread.
The idea was to collapse the two different kinds of delete into one
while preserving existing functionality. This would be less
confusing to new users and would simplify the interface. It could
also be the basis for generic user-definable virtual folders.
My understanding is that it would go something like this:
* actual messages remain in their original mailbox with
deleted flag set
* Trash is no longer a real mailbox, but an index consisting
of pointers to messages marked as deleted in the various
* keep the "Hide (/unhide) messages marked as deleted"
Correct on all three points.
* deleting from Trash folder permanently deletes message
That's an possibility - apart from the fact that IMAP does not support
selective expunge of messages, only entire mailboxes - but perhaps
this could be solved differently.
- what about non-local mailboxes and synchronization?
IMAP mailboxes introduce no new problems as far as I can see.
- do we keep a persistent state?
Persistent state is equally difficult for local and non-local
mailboxes? It's possibly easier for IMAP because one could just
remember UIDVALIDITY/UID pairs while there is no easy way to do the
same for local mailboxes (unless we assume balsa is the only client -
perhaps that's not such a bad assumption).
- do we have a lazy update? (items don't appear in
Trash until remote mailbox is checked?)
It's a question of taste but I would rather not make the update
- other ideas?
- still use expunge (per mailbox), or just "Empty Trash"
- what about same message in two different mailboxes?
- should be okay if both are clearly labeled in terms
of originating mailbox
I do not know... I have more questions: How do you uniquely identify a
message? What about procmail/sieve delivering copies of the same
message to different mailboxes?
You asked many good questions that are not so easy to answer :). Also,
another question to ask is: what do we really win by doing it? You
named virtual folders - and that's probably the biggest advantage. In
principle, IO load could decrease (apart from the potential problems
with tracking deleted messages between sessions) but was it ever a
 unless UIDPLUS extension is present.
] [Thread Prev