Re: [Evolution] Remove duplicates (one more try)

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 09:43, Jakob Breivik Grimstveit wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 14:55, Dan Winship wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 06:32, Jakob Breivik Grimstveit wrote:
> >
> > > Tip for an extra feature: Please include a "Remove duplicates in this
> > > folder" folder menu item!
> > ...
> > > Problem is that I've had problems with the POP3-implementation in
> > > Evolution. Download 2500 mails, using f.ex spamassassin as commandline
> > > filter. Evolution then is killed for one reason or the other after
> > > having downloaded 1800 mails. Next time evolution start you start
> > > downloading mail 1/2500 AGAIN :-(. Thus I have more than 1000 duplicate
> > > emails filtered into several separate folders with filtering enabled - a
> > > big task to manually remove.
> >
> > Sounds to me like you don't really want a "remove duplicates" command,
> > you just want us to fix the bug that evolution will redownload the same
> > messages more than once in some situations.
>
> Well, I think the solution is two-fold. It should be possible to display
> in a separate window (after asking for it) every mails which have
> duplicate message-id, and then select which of those one wants to
> delete. Like what happened just now with the mail I'm currently
> answering to. I got one directly into my inbox, and one filtered
> automatically into the evol mailinglist subdir. I don't want them both
> for later on, but have no intention about running after these messages
> and delete them manually the time.
>
> Secondly, the POP3-thingy is absolutely something one should look more
> into :-) - that is not to be considered a bug, but a not-so-advanced
> pop3-implementation that can be fixed without too much trouble (expunge
> mails on pop3 server for example each 50 mails, for example, or even
> some logic based on downloaded messages on client side?).

that would be extremely inefficient. there's no way to expunge pop
except by sending the QUIT command, which means you'd have to reconnect
every 50 messages. this is unacceptable.

the current logic is the only solution (although the implementation of
the current logic may in fact be buggy, but that is a separate issue).

Jeff

> Just my two norwegian kroner. Thanks in advance.
-- 
Jeffrey Stedfast
Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc.
fejj ximian com  - www.ximian.com