Re: [Evolution] Wish: Uncached IMAP folders

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>]

On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 07:32 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan 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. 
>
> I see.
>
> <sarcasm>
> So even when I don't have Junk processing enabled, the rest of Evo Mail
> is slower and causes extra load on the network *and* the server.
> Brilliant!
> </sarcasm>

Don't forget your local disk -- you cache the headers of every mail in
every folder of the mail server. If you were to delete them from your
local cache, Evolution would refetch them when it checks for new mail.

> > The simple option might have been to mark the messages as read when we
> > decided they were junk.
>
> That would work. Currently, when the user explicitly marks something as
> Junk, it also gets marked as read (even if he hasn't read it).

It _doesn't_ get marked as read on the server. That's why we can't just 
ask the server how many unread messages there are -- because its idea of
what's unread (and indeed of which folders exist and which mail is in
which folder) isn't coherent with what we're displaying to the user.

-- 
dwmw2