On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 14:41, Paul J Stevens wrote: > Hans Kristian Rosbach wrote: > > Well, this sucks.. But I guess it's nice for IMAP users. But does > > people actually copy messages that much? I've never done so myself, > > and I don't really see any big use for it. In my openion it is not > > worth it to make everything else slow and complex in order to speed > > up a seldomly used function. > > Ahem, you're being ego-centric here. The fact that you don't use copy doesn't > actually constitute a representative sample of the imap community. I know I > use > copy *a lot*, and I know many people who use client-side filtering for > sorting > and spam-filtering. Copying must be as fast and cheap as possible.
So you can have two spam mails instead of one? Or is this in conjunction with wanting to move the message? If so, then I can see your point. But I still don't see the physmessages table helping that at all. > > Still I see no use for answered_flag etc in Mailboxes? > > I'm guessing here that those flags were introduced with certain optimizations > in > mind. The imap commands status and examine could access those fields in stead > of > checking all messages in a mailbox. But you are right in so far as that they > don't seem to be actively used in the code. I see that that could be necessary for seen_flag and deleted_flag maybe. But never answered_flag.. Who would ever answer to an entire mailbox? I really see a need for improved documentation on the database schema.. -=Dead2=-
