Re: [Evolution] Alternative to Evolution's trash handling

[Patrick O'Callaghan <poc usb ve>]

On 09/29/2009 09:36 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 08:35 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 13:39 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote:
> > > a large number of users seems to be disappointed [1] by Evolution's
> > > trash handling, which - according to [1] - also seems to cause issues
> > > with some "broken" IMAP server implementations. Are there any
> > > development efforts for an alternative trash handling playing nicely
> > > with "broken" IMAP server implementations (discussed under [2],
> > > referenced by [1b]), which could be activated via a simple button?
> > > I'm just asking because I've read a user request in a GNOME 2.28 release
> > > news [3] on a popular German website and the myriad of comments under
> > > [1] suggests that many users would appreciate the possibility of a
> > > different trash handling.
> > > [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206061
> > If you read to the bottom of that URL you'll see that Milan is working
> > on this, but so far it's not on the roadmap for a stable version.
> > The whole IMAP deletion issue is an example of the difference between
> > 'de facto' and 'de jure' standards. IMAP defines deletion in a very
> > specific way -- the 'de jure' standard -- and Evo implements the
> > definition. Most other MUA's follow the "real Trash folder" model, i.e.
> > they don't fully implement IMAP but use a 'de facto' standard. The 'de
> > jure' way is elegant and efficient,
>
> Agree.  As a mail system administrator I vote +1 for keeping the current
> method [the right way] as the default.

I don't think the proposal was to change the default, but to add an 
option. I for one would stay with the current method.

poc