Re: [Evolution] Does Evolution really need to be so terribly bad?

[Patrick O'Callaghan <poc usb ve>]

On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 19:57 -0700, Axel wrote:
> Patrick - 
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. I should have added some disclaimers, to
> make my position more clear. I wrote mail clients on Unix, Windows,
> Mac OS, and Atari os over 15 years ago. I understand what Evolution is
> doing and why. 
>
> But I just wanted to reiterate that I don't think it should be
> implemented in this way in offline mode. It is counter intuitive. In
> effect, it would probably be better to hide these messages in the
> trash folder, to avoid confusion. 

Sure, that's a valid viewpoint. My take on it is that the Evo devels are
purists who want things to be consistent across different providers, and
they chose IMAP as the canonical model. As you know, IMAP is designed to
be used the way I described.

> Again, its not about a lack of technical understanding, but just a
> different view point. Viel free to check other email clients on linux,
> windows, or mac to compare the behaviour. 

I know about them. I have no quarrel with the model being different as
long as I know what it is. Many MUA implementations
*cough*Thunderbird*cough* don't state this explicitly, or try to hide it
in an abstraction. In some ways Evo isn't perfectly clear either (e.g.
do you really know *exactly* when it's going to sync message state with
the server?) but at least the IMAP semantics are clear.

> All of that said, I do like to point out that your many contribution
> are welcome by myself and I am sure most of the Evolution community! 

Thanks for that :-)

poc