Re: [Evolution] Wish: Uncached IMAP folders

[George Reeke <reeke mail rockefeller edu>]

Dear List,
   Here's my standard reply to many such issues:  Users' Choice!
When setting up a new account, you get to choose
"Slow, accurate counts" vs "Fast, approximate counts".
Then we don't need to argue over whether this strategy
was a good idea.
   Regards,
   George Reeke

On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 20:06 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > 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'. 
>
> Man, that's just... Messy.  Instead of hiding them, what if a 
> new "subject pane" column "Junk" were created (kinda like 
> "Flagged!").  A Stored Search (nee Virtual Folder) would list
> all the Junk.
>
> But would that also require re-fetching all mails?
>
> Or, just *really* move them to the Junk Folder?
>
> Or..... disable Junk processing for IMAP!!!!  Since I don't need
> it, nobody needs it.
>
> > 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.