Of course, the point is that the mail clients almost everybody is familiar with don't require this.
It is also cumbersome, confusing, and totally unnecessary. Scott On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 14:29, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > I already told you: if you don't want to see dot files, then don't > subscribe to them. or delete them off your imap server. I don't care. > > Jeff > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 17:03, Scott Otterson wrote: > > Does the spec tell you to display an email if you click on it? > > > > No, but this is conventional email client behavior. If you literally > > implement only what is in the spec, I don't know what you'd have but it > > is certain that nobody could use it. > > > > Similarly, not showing dotfiles is an IMAP client convention. People > > expect it, and your client is for people, afterall. > > > > Scott > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 12:12, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > > I invite you to read the bloody spec and show me where it says to hide > > > dot files. if you can't find it, then I'm not implementing it. period. > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 15:14, Scott Otterson wrote: > > > > If Outlook and Mozilla (>90% of all IMAP clients by user) don't display > > > > dotfiles, then that IS the convention. > > > > > > > > Evolution isn't following it. > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 12:02, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > > > > if there was a convention, it would be in the server implementation - > > > > > WHERE IT BELONGS > > > > > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 14:53, Scott Otterson wrote: > > > > > > Unix again... > > > > > > > > > > > > Outlook and Mozilla -- two of the most popular non-Unix IMAP clients -- > > > > > > do not display dotfiles, regardless of what LIST returns. There's a > > > > > > convention here that evolution isn't following. > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 11:23, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > > > > > > hiding dot files is a unix filesystem thing, it is not an imap thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if folders starting with a . were meant to be hidden by imap clients, > > > > > > > then the server simply wouldn't return them in the LIST query, now would > > > > > > > it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 13:28, Scott Otterson wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't see what the OS has to do with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mozilla and Outlook -- neither of which require Unix -- hide the > > > > > > > > dotfiles. If two of the most popular IMAP clients handle this > > > > > > > > situation > > > > > > > > gracefully, then this is starting to look like an OS-independent IMAP > > > > > > > > convention. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has anybody noticed how other IMAP clients handle dotfiles? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 10:07, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > > > > > > > > imap != unix filesystem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > period. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 13:06, Scott Otterson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Well, manually subscribing to a bunch of folders is a way to handle > > > > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Mozilla and Outlook are smarter than that... can't evolution > > > > > > > > > > be too? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 09:45, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > this is a server issue, not a client issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if your server uses dot files for state info, then it should not > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > listing them when we query for folders. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > however, you *could* simply have evo show only subscribed > > > > > > > > > > > folders and > > > > > > > > > > > just not subscribe to the dot folders. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 12:21, Scott Otterson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a way to set up evolution to not display IMAP status > > > > > > > > > > > > dot > > > > > > > > > > > > folders? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The UW IMAP server I'm hooked to has a lot of folders > > > > > > > > > > > > beginning with a > > > > > > > > > > > > period. I never look at them because they contain account > > > > > > > > > > > > info, spam > > > > > > > > > > > > filter status and so on. They're invisible in the folder > > > > > > > > > > > > views of > > > > > > > > > > > > mozilla, outlook express, etc., but they fill up the screen in > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there an evolution XML file somewhere that I can change? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution > > > _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
