Well, dont use the feature then. Use a vfolder, if thats what you want.
On 17 May 2001 13:20:32 +0200, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
>
> [First of all, sorry for the long mail]
>
> Not Zed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 16 May 2001 18:50:43 +0200, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
> > > Also the UI for these Options is very strange, for "Hide Read
> > > messages" you have the menu entry, but there is no check mark when
> > > it's selected, to unselect you have to select "Show all"... and this
> > > state is folder local... UI from hell :-(
> >
> > No the ui is correct. Hide read messages is not a state, its an action.
> > i.e. it just hides CURRENTLY read messages. It doesn't keep hiding
> > newly read messages.
>
> Oh come on, that's even worse. I have a folder with 1000 msg. I hide 990
> of them, then I read 5 of the remaining 10. Now on subsequent entering
> of the folder I have not a single feedback from UI that there are
> "older" read messages that are hidden. This _is_ UI from hell.
>
> The problem is that you seem to store the attribute of being hidden on
> a per mail basis. But what a lot of people would like to see is a
> folder attribute that means: "Don't show me read mails in this
> folder". All messages i read after entering such a folder will be
> marked read, and, after I come back, won't be shown.
>
> The accumulative way you implemented seems to be a way to just move
> "uninteresting older mails" out of sight. But when I have a big
> folder, with a mix of a lot of read messages, some unread (aka new)
> messages and a real big bunch of hidden messages, I run into problems
> when I want to see such a hidden msq. I do a Show all, poff, all of
> them are there. But now how can I hide them again? Hide read will hide
> all of the read ones, which is not what I wanted.
>
> What makes more sense to me is a mix of attributes that belong to
> certain messages (like flag as important, flag as unimportant, or even
> levels of importance) and attributes that belong to the view of a
> folder (like "do always show important messages, regardless of if they
> are read or not", "do not show unimportant messages", and of course
> the most important "do not show read messages" or even better "do not
> show read messages that have no descendants [in the sense of how a
> threading option would sort them] that are unread")
>
> What you call "hiding" is in fact a flagging as "somehow unimportant"
> plus the fact that the folder does't show those. But what you call
> "show all" is unfortunately a "remove the unimportant flag". Instead
> it should be "show all, even if they are flagged as unimportant". That
> way, on subsequent entries, the flag persists and I will (to come back
> to my example above) see again just 10 messages, with 5 of them marked
> as read (of course only if I have _not_ set the hypothetical folder option
> of hiding read mails).
>
> jtl
_______________________________________________
evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.helixcode.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
