On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:11:21 -0700 (PDT) Mark Crispin <mrc...@panda.com> wrote:
MC> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Vadim Zeitlin wrote: MC> > MC> > However I do like trash model for other MC> > MC> > mailboxes because it allows me to keep the deleted messages if I ever need MC> > MC> > them again. Think about trash as being "archive" in this case. MC> > MC> Why not create archive mailboxes for that purpose? MC> > Sorry, what's the difference? MC> MC> By calling something Trash, you are inviting its destruction without MC> notice to you. This meaning is new to me but ok, please replace trash with "archive" in everything I wrote. It's really a question of terminology and while I admit that I'm not very strong in this area I don't believe it changes anything. MC> > Well, this seems like something that I thought about, i.e. use client-side MC> > filtering to exclude the deleted messages. But while this could work I MC> > don't really see what advantage would this provide while this clearly will MC> > have many problems (e.g. interoperability with the other clients which MC> > wouldn't hide the messages marked as "archived" in the mailbox). MC> MC> Yet, in the name of "interoperability", you are storing archive data in a MC> place where you have granted implicit permission for its destruction! Sorry, this is just plain wrong. I haven't granted implicit permission to the destruction of anything. I don't know what kind of savage administrators and wild programs roam on your IMAP servers but there is nothing that can implicitly delete anything on any servers that I use. And I really prefer it that way and don't care at all about preventing from happening something that can never happen in my environment, by definition. MC> It may be your co-worker (or, to make the metaphor clearer, it may be MC> an application that, unknown to you, automatically empties trash). Please show me applications that automatically delete anything without asking the user so that I could recommend my colleagues against using it. MC> That is the only excuse for implementing the client trash can visual MC> metaphor as a mailbox called Trash. It is otherwise completely unnatural MC> and inappropriate for the IMAP model. Why? Again, remember that you need to s/trash/archive/g here. So, once again, could you please explain why having a separate "archive" mailbox (or many separate archive mailboxes which, as I already wrote, I think would be preferable) is unnatural and inappropriate for the IMAP model? Giving some logical reasons for it would be really appreciated as otherwise it just doesn't make for a very interesting discussion. MC> You evidentally are a novice in this. I obviously don't have your experience with IMAP. But then nobody does, by definition. So I really don't see why do you need to bring this tautology up here. MC> The issue that I refer to is whether or not to show the trash as being MC> "empty" if there is no Trash mailbox, but instead simply \Deleted status MC> on messages. If you fret about the possibility of a message being deleted MC> in some mailbox that is not normally opened, and want that reflected in MC> the Trash status, then you have to check that mailbox to see if it has MC> deleted messages before showing the Trash status. MC> MC> The point that I am making is that for the vast majority of users this is MC> a silly argument. But it is the only argument to justify a Trash mailbox, MC> which in every other way is inferior to the IMAP delete-expunge model. I really couldn't care less about the trash^H^H^H^H^Harchive status and I don't know any users who care about it neither. I think you're fighting a strawman here. MC> > 1. You should never ever call expunge or you lose your entire archive. MC> MC> [a] Don't delete messages unless you are willing to have them vanish at MC> any time without notice to you. Well, you're, dare I say, notoriously user unfriendly and this is a typical example. I don't want the programs I use to teach me how to behave by losing my messages if I do something wrong. I want them to be gentler and allow me to undo my mistakes. MC> [b] Use a proper archive mechanism. And what exactly would this be? MC> [c] IMAP UIDPLUS-capable servers have UID EXPUNGE This is nice to know, thanks. MC> > 2. Interoperability suffers. If you have to use another client you will see MC> > all the deleted messages in it. Worse, it might decide to expunge them, MC> > see (1). MC> MC> Nothing whatsoever prevents the same fate from happening to a trash MC> mailbox. I know plenty of clients which expunge the mailboxes. I know of none which clears the trash. MC> > 3. Performance will suffer as well. My "active" mailboxes have from a few MC> > hundred to a couple of thousands messages in them and this, of course, MC> > is not a problem at all. Having several dozens of thousands of messages MC> > might though. In fact if I open my trash right now, it takes 1 minute MC> > for the server (Dovecot 1.2) to thread it. MC> MC> Panda IMAP is not that slow. It can thread 50,000 messages in under a MC> second. Impressive but I want my mailboxes to handle at least a 1000000 messages (seeing that I already have 200000 it seems only natural to plan for more). And as I don't have access to Panda IMAP the point is somewhat moot anyhow. MC> You can't put a message back if it has been moved of the mailbox. All you MC> can do is create a new copy. Yes, thanks, I'm aware of it. The net effects to the user are almost indistinguishable though so once again I fail to see the point of this remark. MC> I should also note that Gmail does exactly what I say should be done by MC> IMAP clients. Tastes differ. For me (and quite a few other people) organizing things in hierarchical folders is much more natural than using tags in one huge catch all one. So I really don't want to use an IMAP client which would emulate Gmail. And I don't see why would anybody want to write one neither, after all you can already just use the real thing if this is the way you like it. Anyhow, you have repeatedly stated that trash was not a proper method to archive messages. For me this is nonsensical because I think trash and archive are all but synonyms. Yet clearly you believe they aren't. So I'm still curious about what do you consider a "proper archiving method" and how would you implement it. Would you just do exactly the same thing as Gmail or do you have any other, better ideas? Regards, VZ
pgp7Qj3liz2z9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Imap-uw mailing list Imap-uw@u.washington.edu http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
