On Apr 17 2010, Mark Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
MC> > However I do like trash model for other
MC> > mailboxes because it allows me to keep the deleted messages if I
ever need
MC> > them again. Think about trash as being "archive" in this case.
MC> Why not create archive mailboxes for that purpose?
Sorry, what's the difference?
By calling something Trash, you are inviting its destruction without
notice to you.
Trash. n. things that you throw away because you no longer want or need
them.
Quote the dictionary all you want; while I agree with you in an ideal
world, people have been conditioned by 25 years of GUI metaphors that say
otherwise, which is why the purist recommendations are broken. Pure and
simple. You might think those GUI metaphors are bad (and I would be right
there agreeing with you), but our opinion is irrelevant.
Some of the other assertions in this discussion are counter to what I've
seen and studied in users and analysis of their mail usage, but it's all
just about as irrelevant as what Merriam and Webster have to say about
Trash.
-Brian
_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
Imap-uw@u.washington.edu
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
