Re: [Evolution] Mark as read in message filter

["Mark @ StantonCentral" <mark stantoncentral co uk>]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for your reply.


> Both are also in the Evolution Help that comes with every copy of
> Evolution:

Fair point. Now accessing that way (the [forward] links aren't quite
the way you've said, but certainly close enough), I now see the 404 was
just due to a typo in the mail message.


> I know you said "Mark as Read" doesn't work on its own, and I'm sorry
> to press you on it, but are you sure?  It certainly works for me and
> others.

Press as much as you like, although gently please :-)
I never like to claim that it's impossible I'm doing anything wrong.

In fact it seems that some of the rules are correctly marking mail as
read, but certainly one particular one isn't. The delay in replying to
you was because I was waiting for more mail to come in to confirm or
deny my theory.

The rule that definitely isn't marking messages as read has 13
conditions, 12 matching senders one matching a recipient, and then sets
status, then moves it, then stops processing. It's doing everything
except the marking as read.


> > Not only is that not very intuitive, but it's allowing the user to
> > do
> > something worthless, without warning.
>
> You can be assured that if such checks were put in place, it would
> take
> a day or so before someone complains that it's not letting them do
> what
> they want to do.

I, respectfully, disagree. Even if this was the case (which is not the
point I'm disagreeing), my point is that such a combination would not
do what the person setting it up thought it was doing. As pointed out,
I believe, moving the message and then marking it as read will not
produce the required result because the marking-as-read will act on the
original copy in the inbox, which will be deleted after the rule
finishes. Is that not the case?


> Please feel free to file an enhancement request in git.gnome.org -
> and
> if you do, please link to it from this thread so others in the future
> can easily find it.

I'll experiment a bit more first.

Thank you, again, for your reply.
Mark