who cares what mozilla does? if mozilla jumps off a bridge, should we do it? I don't think so.
the imap specifications (rfc2060) states that it is the SERVERS OPTION to hide folders from a LIST "" "*" query. If the server doesn't hide them, then the client has NO CHOICE but to assume that these are valid mailbox folders. dot files are PERFECTLY VALID IMAP FOLDER NAMES and thus should be treated as such by the client. if you have a complaint, either go complain to your imap server vendor or to Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who, funnily enough, is probably right down the hall from mr otterson and is also responsible for the implementation of uw.imapd (or at least the initial implementation). So there you have it. Jeff On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 18:42, Thomas Spuhler wrote: > Scott, > You are right, Mozilla has no such problem and doesn't show any hidden > (.) folders. > Tom > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 15:39, Scott Otterson wrote: > > 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 > _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
