Re: Re: [evolution-patches] Possible fix for #322016

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj novell com>]

On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 16:27 +0000, karllinuxtest relton ntlworld com
wrote:
> > 
> > heh, we did that too... that was our first implementation, but the
> > problem is it doesn't work well for IMAP because:
> > 
> > 1. user might not have IMAP filters enabled
> > 2. only INBOX would ever get filtered
> > 
> 
> Hmmm, but could we not use the same technique regardless
> of the 'IMAP - apply filters' user option?

I suppose, but we'd still have the same problem in that the filters
wouldn't be able to tell the difference between new-for-real mail and
new-to-the-folder-because-it-was-moved mail

> 
> And since IMAP also has a user option 'check for new
> messages in all folders' suggests that #2 is surmountable
> as well.

not really. you need to open all folders in order to filter them, the
check-new-mail-for-each-folder thing really only sends a STATUS command
to get message/unread counts.

> 
> Sorry for my persistant onion-peeling approach - my
> knowledge of Imap is only as an end user rather than
> really knowing what happens under the hood.

np, you're just brainstorming...

-- 
Jeffrey Stedfast
Evolution Hacker - Novell, Inc.
fejj ximian com  - www.novell.com