Re: [evolution-patches] IMAP namespace pollution.

[Not Zed <notzed ximian com>]

On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 08:20 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 12:15 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> > This patch wont be accepted, you need to implement a proper
> > distinction between virtual 'junk' and 'trash' folders and real ones. 
>
> I do agree that the virtual 'junk' and 'trash' folders are poorly
> thought out and poorly represented to the user, and there should have
> been a proper distinction between them and real folders. 

I never said such a thing.  I said your patch makes no distinction between the two.

> >  It goes much deeper than just not showing a virtual folder for
> > either.
>
> It does. Personally I'd rip the 'feature' out entirely, or at least
> would have refused its inclusion until the problem you mention had been
> fixed. After all, the user can still have these in the 'vFolders' tree
> where they belong. But still, given that some people may actually have
> got used to the existing inconsistent representation, it doesn't seem
> unreasonable to leave them as an _option_, and we can even let that
> option default to 'on'. 

I'm sorry you misread what I said, I didn't say any such thing.

> > i.e. if the client deletes a message it must either just be deleted,
> > or physically moved to a trash folder (pop quiz - how do you know what
> > it is called?  you can't, without more configuration).
>
> I'm not sure I understand. When the client marks a message for deletion
> it is marked for deletion. When the client expunges the folder, the
> marked messages are erased. This is the IMAP model and this is how other
> IMAP clients, including the webmail, will behave. To do otherwise is
> bizarre and confusing. 

So you're suggesting  a new behaviour which is bizarre and confusing then?  How can you have a physical trash folder and have any use for it, yet still maintain the deleted flag behaviour?

> One can select "Hide Deleted messages" and "Automatically Expunge" if
> one really believes that the user cannot deal with two-stage deletion.
> Introducing the concept of an Evolution-specific 'Limbo' where deleted
> things go as the first part of their deletion before they cross the
> river and are actually deleted doesn't really seem helpful -- especially
> when the positioning of said 'Limbo' folder is such that it appears to
> be just another folder on the IMAP server, but one which is not visible
> from other IMAP clients.
>
> For the competent user these folders are just a waste of space on the
> screen. For the naĩve user they're confusing and actively detrimental to
> the user interface. I appreciate that some people might actually use
> them -- that's why I'm talking about an _option_ to disable them, not
> just ripping then out entirely as I'd naturally be inclined to do.

Well, i've said all i'm going to say.  Fix it properly if you want it changed.