Re: Virtual Trash Folder

[Craig Routledge <webstuff craigroutledge com>]

On 09/20/2005 03:10:47 PM, Pawel Salek wrote:
> On 09/18/2005 05:01:41 PM, Craig Routledge wrote:

> > * deleting from Trash folder permanently deletes message
>
> That's an possibility - apart from the fact that IMAP does not support  
> selective expunge of messages[1], only entire mailboxes - but perhaps  
> this could be solved differently.
>
> [1] unless UIDPLUS extension is present.

Well then we could just stick with "Empty Trash" and remove all the  
contents at once.  Shouldn't be a problem since people can undelete and  
rescue and individual message -- then clear the rest.

> >    - 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  
> obligatory.

Sounds fine to me, and should avoid potentially long lookups from holding  
up initialization.

> >    - other ideas?
> >
> > - still use expunge (per mailbox), or just "Empty Trash"
> >   (all mailboxes)?
>
> Both?

If that's what people want.  I was just wondering if people actually  
expunge messages one box at a time?  Presumably all messages marked as  
deleted are no longer of interest;  it's just a safety mechanism.  Is it  
done per mailbox for performance reasons?  Because it's closer to the way  
the protocol works?  Or do people have a workflow that make this a  
desirable feature?

> > - 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?

Since the Trash is constructed using pointers to the real message  
(duplicate or not), do we not always know where it came from?

> > Comments?
>
> 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 problem?

The two big items I saw were new-user confusion over the two kinds of  
delete and the desire for virtual folders.  I reiterated the idea because  
it seemed to get a favorable response the last time it was mentioned and I  
thought it worth discussing.  I can certainly live without it, if it looks  
like more pain than benefit.