Re: [Evolution] Evo 1.2.1 bugs / feature requests

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 15:00, guenther wrote:
> cheers();
>
>
> > > Labels though seem to be stored in ~/evolution on every account
> > > separately. Where exactly are they stored?
> >
> > they are stored in ~/evolution/mail/imap/<account>/folders/<folder
> > path>/summary
> >
> > > And is there any hope to store that information in the mail on IMAP
> > > server, too? I really would appreciate this.
> >
> > nah, not easily doable. we *could* encode the follow-up flag in a
> > message header or something, and add it to the message - but that means
> > we'd have to download the message (actually, it's already downloaded if
> > you are viewing it anyway), add the header, delete the message on the
> > server and then re-upload the modified version of the message. This has
> > some major disadvantages:
> >
> > 1) totally sucks for performance reasons
> > 2) messages will lose their ordering
> > 3) if you are currently viewing the message, it would disappear out from
> > under your nose.
>
> OK, I understand that. But here I wasn't speaking about follow-ups, but
> labels.

labels have the same problem that follow-up flags have (sorry, meant to
say labels but got to thinking follow-up flags for some reason).

> Status Information _is_ stored on the IMAP server. Labels _not_. Why?
> Where's the different, as for both a new header entry is sufficiant?

the difference is that we don't actually modify the headers of the
messages on the IMAP server when updating the status. IMAP has a
mechanism to do:

UID STORE <uid or range> FLAGS (\Seen \Answered)

or

UID STORE <uid or range> +FLAGS.SILENT (\Seen)

(there are other ways to change the flags too, but we only use those 2
ways).

the first one sets a flag list, the second simply adds additional
flag(s) to what is already set.

there is no way to do this with labels :-\

> > > - View / Message Display / Source broken
> > >
> > > Displaying the Mail with full headers or as Source is really a good
> > > feature. But it is really broken.
> > >
> > > Even Source View filters the content and doesn't display the real
> > > source. Headers like Status: and X-Status: are omitted.
> >
> > no it doesn't. if they aren't being displayed, then they aren't in the
> > raw message either.
> >
> > > Why? Everyone who wanna use this expects the real source to be
> > > displayed. But this feature really is useless, when I have to view my
> > > mbox file manually to get the full source.
> > >
> > > Any chance to get this fixed?
> >
> > those headers aren't there, there's nothing to fix :)
>
> You are supposing I am a really dumb, aren't you? ;-))
>
> I checked the message source as it is in my IMAP mbox file. There _are_
> those lines. And they are _not_ displayed in 'view source'.

if that is the case, then the IMAP server is stripping them when we
fetch it.

> I will give you some proof later. Had expewrienced some problems with
> headers weeks ago but the thread died some time...

take a look at the results from ethereal, I think you'll find that the
server isn't giving us the Status: headers.

If I'm wrong, I'd like to hear about it (and I'm sure I will anyway).

> > > There seems to be no way, to set Labels by Filter. Just forgotten when
> > > coding?
> >
> > not so much forgotten as left waiting in the TODO queue until we had
> > time to figure out how to do it.
>
> OK, that's the usual problem. ;-) Don't suppose that it will be added
> for 1.4?

Depends on what we have time for...

> > > - Thread: Re-Define Follow-Ups (feature request)
> > >
> > > The Threaded Message View is really a great feature. But as there are on
> > > other mailing-lists people, who seems not to know about a reply button,
> > > I get a lot of partially broken Threads.
> > >
> > > What about a feature, to tell Evo that a message is a follow-up to
> > > another post? And vice-versa defining a post as not-follow-up?
> > >
> > > Is it even possible to code? (Sorry, I don't know, how the follow-up in
> > > threads are calculated. Any info about that is also welcome.)
> >
> > :\
> >
> > I'd really prefer not to do things this way, it just makes stuff more
> > complicated.
>
> Yeah, it really will.
>
> > I think what you are looking for is "thread based on subject" which we
> > used to have in 1.0.x (then everyone complained, so we removed it - and
> > now everyone is complaining that we *don't* thread by subject anymore -
> > *sigh*, the pain never stops ;-)
>
> lol -- no, the way 1.2.x handles follow-ups is way better than I know
> from 1.0.x. I don't wanna get the old behavior back.

okay...

Jeff

-- 
Jeffrey Stedfast
Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc.
fejj ximian com  - www.ximian.com