Re: [Evolution] Delete messages on server when deleted locally

At 12:24 AM 6/3/2003 +0200, guenther wrote:

> >POP3 is not designed for that, and every mailer I used with similar
> >functions did not delete those messages (Eudora, Netscape).
> I'm surprised when I hear that POP3 is not "designed" for something. This
> really has nothing to do with POP3. POP3 has two methods built-in: leave on
> server and delete from server.

Sorry, that was my definition of being "designed" for some purpose.

I normally have a negative response when I hear someone use that phrase. While it may not be the case in your instance, most of the time it's followed with some cop-out as to why that's not the way to do it. I'm not really interested in a philosophical discussion about mail clients so this turns me off. Judging from your response you don't fall into this category.

POP3 does _not_ have those methods "built in". POP3 has RETR and TOP to
fetch a mail and DELE to delete any given mail.

All implementations and especially logic beyond this commands entirely
is up to the developers. And even those basic commands are broken in
some POP3 servers, judging from the complaints in here... :-/

This is what I mean by built-in. You can retrieve the messages without deleting them or with deleting then. That's what I mean by built-in as it's not done by the client as are the things we have been requesting.

> Anything other than this is trivial
> programming on the part of the application developer as demonstrated in a
> number of other mail clients.

Granted, yes -- you can do better even with this very small set of
commands. But it always will be just some clever workaround.

Most of the things I do on a *nix command line are clever workarounds. That's the beauty of the OS design. Believe me, if I could program in C (or whatever Evolution uses, I would HAPPILY donate the code to make this happen).

I can understand that other features are more important and I have no problem with that. What I don't like is when a developer tells me something "wasn't designed that way and you should change over to the why that I suggest." That's not his job. He should respond to the marketplace to the best of his abilities.

> I for one prefer POP over IMAP all the time. They only reason I like the
> concept that Eudora implements is because I only have a couple of systems
> and they don't need to be synchronized. I like to be able to check my mail
> from a couple of places without making sure every box has the same info. I
> have one "primary" system that contains everything I need and I have no
> need to replicate.

Yep. Again, IMHO POP3 was only designed to fetch mail, not to manage
your mail on the server and from different places.

At least that is how I interpret chapter 1 of RFC 1939... ;-)

I agree but no one is asking for it to manage the mail. We don't want changes we make to a message propagated back to the server. We just want more granularity when it comes to the retrieval and deletion of messages. I wouldn't suggest that someone create IMAP functionality in a mail client.


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