Re: [Evolution] Duplicated messages in search folders

[Patrick O'Callaghan <poc usb ve>]

On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 22:02 +0000, Pete Biggs wrote:
> These days it is increasingly unlikely that mbox is used as the
> backend
> for an IMAP server (it's usually Maildir or a database) and the
> disadvantages of moving a deleted message to a real folder
> immediately
> is largely negated.  The provision of a real trash in Evolution is
> actually quite a recent feature.
>
> Most old hands do not use a real trash folder, but mark messages as
> deleted the way nature intended it.

There are two additional advantages to the canonical IMAP deletion
model:

1) Deleting a message by copying it to Trash can fail if the user is
very close to a space quota on the server. This sometimes leads to the
paradoxical situation in which the user wants to delete old messages to
free up space, but can't because he doesn't have enough space to copy
them to the Trash. This can't happen with the "mark and expunge" model.

2) Undoing the delete is much easier as the server simply has to flip a
flag. With the physical Trash model the server has to remember where
the message came from originally and copy it back (with the same issues
as point 1 above).

However the majority of mail clients don't understand these subtleties
so the physical model is much more common in practice.

poc