Neil Schneider wrote: > Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade wrote: >> On Aug 23, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Neil Schneider wrote: >> >>> I don't know what "virtual folders" are. >> Virtual folders, or search folders, or any number of other similar >> names, are things that look like folders would in the application, >> but are really nothing more than saved searches. >> >> Thunderbird, Evolution, Kmail, Apple Mail, and I think even Outlook >> and Entourage support this capability, and if you use the feature, >> it'll only present those "folders" in that particular client where >> you set it up. It doesn't do anything on the server. > > Probably why I don't know about it. I've maybe used one of those for a very > short time, and went back to what I was using before. This sounds like the way > that gmail does "folders" They "label" mail and you view the "folders" that > are arranged by "labels". Then you can set up "filters" that label the mail as > it comes in. Maybe only the INBOX is a real folder. > > I do essentially the same thing on my mailserver, except the folders are > "real" they exist on the server and sieve moves the mail into those > directories. > > I hate the designation of "folder" btw, the proper name is directory. Folder > is a Windows euphemism. There are no "folders" on my computers, all my folders > are over in the file cabinet, where they belong.
<heh> I have the same reaction to "folder". .. But, I think the /virtual folder/ part does have a conceptual strength in allowing your view of the information _organization_ to be customized. Actually, not too far removed from symlinks, eh? For email, it strikes me that there is one unquestionably superior indexing method (by receipt timestamp). Sender and subject (etc) are great secondary indices, but I'd kinda like to be able to apply multiple and time-varying ad-hoc tags to email messages. Maybe even have some kind of bayesian autotagging? I'm very ignorant about tags and tagging, but I think one common feature is that tags that are referenced more become more visible, and relatively unused tags tend to fade from visibility. I'm even more ignorant about bayesian filtering, but I'd like to know more. Maybe Andy will give us a lecture on it one of these days? (hopefully practical rather than theoretical :-) ) Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
