On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 15:00, guenther wrote: > cheers(); > > > > > Labels though seem to be stored in ~/evolution on every account > > > separately. Where exactly are they stored? > > > > they are stored in ~/evolution/mail/imap/<account>/folders/<folder > > path>/summary > > > > > And is there any hope to store that information in the mail on IMAP > > > server, too? I really would appreciate this. > > > > nah, not easily doable. we *could* encode the follow-up flag in a > > message header or something, and add it to the message - but that means > > we'd have to download the message (actually, it's already downloaded if > > you are viewing it anyway), add the header, delete the message on the > > server and then re-upload the modified version of the message. This has > > some major disadvantages: > > > > 1) totally sucks for performance reasons > > 2) messages will lose their ordering > > 3) if you are currently viewing the message, it would disappear out from > > under your nose. > > OK, I understand that. But here I wasn't speaking about follow-ups, but > labels.
labels have the same problem that follow-up flags have (sorry, meant to say labels but got to thinking follow-up flags for some reason). > > Status Information _is_ stored on the IMAP server. Labels _not_. Why? > Where's the different, as for both a new header entry is sufficiant? the difference is that we don't actually modify the headers of the messages on the IMAP server when updating the status. IMAP has a mechanism to do: UID STORE <uid or range> FLAGS (\Seen \Answered) or UID STORE <uid or range> +FLAGS.SILENT (\Seen) (there are other ways to change the flags too, but we only use those 2 ways). the first one sets a flag list, the second simply adds additional flag(s) to what is already set. there is no way to do this with labels :-\ > > > > > - View / Message Display / Source broken > > > > > > Displaying the Mail with full headers or as Source is really a good > > > feature. But it is really broken. > > > > > > Even Source View filters the content and doesn't display the real > > > source. Headers like Status: and X-Status: are omitted. > > > > no it doesn't. if they aren't being displayed, then they aren't in the > > raw message either. > > > > > Why? Everyone who wanna use this expects the real source to be > > > displayed. But this feature really is useless, when I have to view my > > > mbox file manually to get the full source. > > > > > > Any chance to get this fixed? > > > > those headers aren't there, there's nothing to fix :) > > You are supposing I am a really dumb, aren't you? ;-)) > > I checked the message source as it is in my IMAP mbox file. There _are_ > those lines. And they are _not_ displayed in 'view source'. if that is the case, then the IMAP server is stripping them when we fetch it. > > I will give you some proof later. Had expewrienced some problems with > headers weeks ago but the thread died some time... take a look at the results from ethereal, I think you'll find that the server isn't giving us the Status: headers. If I'm wrong, I'd like to hear about it (and I'm sure I will anyway). > > > > > There seems to be no way, to set Labels by Filter. Just forgotten when > > > coding? > > > > not so much forgotten as left waiting in the TODO queue until we had > > time to figure out how to do it. > > OK, that's the usual problem. ;-) Don't suppose that it will be added > for 1.4? Depends on what we have time for... > > > > > - Thread: Re-Define Follow-Ups (feature request) > > > > > > The Threaded Message View is really a great feature. But as there are on > > > other mailing-lists people, who seems not to know about a reply button, > > > I get a lot of partially broken Threads. > > > > > > What about a feature, to tell Evo that a message is a follow-up to > > > another post? And vice-versa defining a post as not-follow-up? > > > > > > Is it even possible to code? (Sorry, I don't know, how the follow-up in > > > threads are calculated. Any info about that is also welcome.) > > > > :\ > > > > I'd really prefer not to do things this way, it just makes stuff more > > complicated. > > Yeah, it really will. > > > I think what you are looking for is "thread based on subject" which we > > used to have in 1.0.x (then everyone complained, so we removed it - and > > now everyone is complaining that we *don't* thread by subject anymore - > > *sigh*, the pain never stops ;-) > > lol -- no, the way 1.2.x handles follow-ups is way better than I know > from 1.0.x. I don't wanna get the old behavior back. okay... Jeff -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
