Re: [Evolution] [ANNOUNCE] Evolution-EWS (Exchange Web Services) Alpha release

[Pete Biggs <pete biggs org uk>]

> There is an open bug for Evolution generically, for using a "real trash
> folder" and actually moving messages to it instead of marking them for
> deletion. That was done as a dirty hack in the imap back end, where it
> notices the "mark for deletion" request and actually *moves* the message
> instead. But that dirty hack doesn't live in *every* back end; it should
> live in the higher level instead, and then the back ends just get a
> normal "move message" request instead.

I'm sure you know this, but there is no "move" operation in IMAP - so a
move is implemented as a "copy" and "mark as deleted".  For what you are
suggesting to work, then you need to end up the sequence with a "purge
folder" so that the deleted message disappears from the folder.  It's
this last operation that is problematic in some instances - it's an
expensive process on some servers (i.e. those with large MBOX format
files) - doing a folder purge everytime you press the delete button is
not very friendly.

I suppose some would argue that the limitations of a server shouldn't be
a factor in designing the client, but I would sit in the opposite camp
where you should be aware of problems so that you can create the best
possible overall user experience.

> Once that's done, we should be able to use the "Deleted Items" folder
> fairly easily.
>
> The disadvantage of this approach is that you don't know where the
> message came from, so you cannot *undelete* it. But I think that's what
> Exchange/Outlook users are used to, so I think that's what we'll do.

But I would be against changing the internals of Evo just because that's
what Outlook users are used to.  Evo is not an Outlook clone, it's
better than that.  Things should be developed and changed so that they
are improved, not so that they mimic some other piece of software.

I understand that the delete behaviour would be configurable - but is
the re-write of Evo internals worth it just so that Exchange users are
not inconvenienced by having to learn a new way of working?

P.