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

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj novell com>]

That's not how POP, for example, gets filtered - only remote mail
stores.

I also don't see how this fixes the issue?

On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 16:07 +0000, karllinuxtest relton ntlworld com
wrote:
> > > Indeed - but we would be no worse off than we are today.
> > 
> > actually, we would... having to run filters on each folder would have a
> > hefty impact on performance
> > 
>  
> Attached is another concept patch. This time I'm in camel/camel-folder.c, where the possibility of filtering
> is decided upon. The do_notify_stuff() is just a placeholder
> for launching the possible new mail notifications.
> 
> This patch would not work for imap-non-inbox folders - but
> I figure some extra logic could be added to add in the
> case of imap and check_all being true.
> 
> We are not actually doing any filtering - we have just
> found the bit of code (and hopefully the one bit of code) where filtering is normally initiated as our hook point
> for new mail notification.
> 
> Clearly it would still suffer the user shuffling unread
> mails bug in the imap folder scenario, but presumably not for other backends, and thus be better than the current status quo.
> 
> Karl
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
-- 
Jeffrey Stedfast
Evolution Hacker - Novell, Inc.
fejj ximian com  - www.novell.com