Re: [Evolution] Wish: Uncached IMAP folders

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>]

On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 22:52 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> I'm speechless. Was this done because some IMAP servers were buggy? If
> not, there would seem to be no justification for it.

I believe it was done in order to fix inconsistencies in the unseen
counts on folders when the strange client-side Junk processing isn't
disabled. The Junk processing hides messages from a folder and pretends
that those messages actually exist in some other fake folder. And thus
the unseen counts in the real folder looked wrong, because some of the
unseen messages were hidden from view. 

The simple option might have been to mark the messages as read when we
decided they were junk. That wasn't what was done, though -- instead of
just being able to ask the server "how many unseen messages are there in
this folder" we now have to fetch the flags for _every_ mail in the
folder and count the ones which are unseen but not 'junk'. 

In fact we also download the _headers_ for every mail in every folder
too. That's just a side-effect of the above, I think; there doesn't seem
to be even a tenuous reason for that.

> By "active" do you mean "subscribed"?

That is the definition of 'subscribed' in the IMAP specification, yes.

-- 
dwmw2