These are my points exactly. What is the problem with automatic deletion (delete then expunge) if they don't have a trash folder? Maybe they don't have a trash folder on purpose? Maybe they want automatic deletion? Who knows... I think it's safer to leave out automatic creation of any folder. Thunderbird does in fact do this but I think it's incorrect. Doesn't anyone read or pay attention to the Unix philosophy anymore?! :)
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:55:00 +0100, Thomas -Balu- Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 08:46:45AM +0100, Thomas Bruederli wrote: >> After following this thread a while, here are my 2 cents about this: >> I admit that the current behavior is not right because deleting can >> fail. The patch submitted by Jacob would solve this and that's what IMO >> should happen. Choice is good, I agree, but I'm not sure how many of the >> "dummy" users have ever seen the settings for deleting messages in their >> mail client. The number of configuration parameters an end-user has to >> deal with should be kept low. > > A customer just had a problem last week when he was not able to delete > mails too. In his case there was a Trash folder, but he was not > subscribed to it. > > I am not sure if I like an automatic creation of the "Trash" folder. > At least my dad does not know what "Trash" is anyway - he'd want to have > "Muelleimer" perhaps. And while talking about the languages... I've > seen people with 4 or more "Trash" folders, because different clients > used different naming themes. > > So having another one added automatically because it's not there is not > what I'd like. Please allow people to choose one or allow immediate > deletion... > > Balu
