Re: [Evolution] Keeping states

["Patrick O'Callaghan" <poc usb ve>]

On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 17:05 -0400, Eric Preston wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan said:
>
> > Except that the message might no longer be there. People use a variety
> > of mailers, including multiple instances of Evo (I do, though they're
> > not concurrent). As long as the state is kept local to each instance and
> > not on the mail server, you can't know what happened between one
> > activation and the next, so you need a fallback. 
>
> I think you're clouding the issue here. If you're using multiple mailers
> (or instances thereof) you've got really unrealistic expectations for
> any of them to keep reasonably sane state information. Defaults should
> accomodate common case(s). My common case is only
> reading .evolution/mboxes with one instance of Evolution.

First of all I was trying to say that I *didn't* expect Evo to handle
this (in fact I don't know of any mailer that does). I was talking about
the "reasonable fallback". Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Secondly, I think nowadays it's far from unusual for people to read mail
from more than one location (at least home and office, probably more if
they travel a lot). It's just a fact of life.

> > But given that people can order the folder index on a lot of different fields, it's not clear
> > what the fallback should be. I'd be happier if it was the bottom message
> > rather than the top one, but that's just me. It would be nice to have it
> > configurable ...
>
> I think it's more than reasonable for Evo to remember the Message-Id
> (yeah, yeah, possibly not unique, blah blah blah) last viewed in a
> folder and jump to that message if possible, falling back to the top of
> the list however it might be sorted at that time (or have a config
> checkbox to jump to the bottom of the list). Whatever scrolling state
> info widget problems there are aside, I don't think I'm the only one who
> thinks it should do this.

No you're not the only one, given that I also think so, which is what I
was trying to say.

> This would be great for those of us not running multiple mail clients on
> the same mboxes but simply trying to read mailing lists from the last
> spot we were at when they get new mail.
>
> I currently get around this problem by simply having a filter duplicate
> the mailing list into another folder... I read and delete the day's mail
> from the one folder which is sorted from top to bottom oldest at the
> top. Falling back on the other folder for searchs and looking up
> threads.

Or you could use a vFolder and avoid duplicating messages.

Cheers

poc