Re: [Evolution] Alternative to Evolution's trash handling
On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 08:35 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206061 If you read to the bottom of that URL you'll see that Milan is working on this, but so far it's not on the roadmap for a stable version. Hi, not 'is', but 'was' working. The patches attached there (though marked as a plain text) are question for testing. I noticed some performance issues with them (could be because of my setup/server), thus if some users can test them and report issues on them, then we can improve them and maybe commit, in case there will be no side-effect of it. My opinion on suggested changes, like the one in comment #88 there, is that I would not like it, it sounds too complicated for ordinary users from my point of view. Bye, Milan ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Alternative to Evolution's trash handling
On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 08:35 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 13:39 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote: a large number of users seems to be disappointed [1] by Evolution's trash handling, which - according to [1] - also seems to cause issues with some broken IMAP server implementations. Are there any development efforts for an alternative trash handling playing nicely with broken IMAP server implementations (discussed under [2], referenced by [1b]), which could be activated via a simple button? I'm just asking because I've read a user request in a GNOME 2.28 release news [3] on a popular German website and the myriad of comments under [1] suggests that many users would appreciate the possibility of a different trash handling. [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206061 If you read to the bottom of that URL you'll see that Milan is working on this, but so far it's not on the roadmap for a stable version. The whole IMAP deletion issue is an example of the difference between 'de facto' and 'de jure' standards. IMAP defines deletion in a very specific way -- the 'de jure' standard -- and Evo implements the definition. Most other MUA's follow the real Trash folder model, i.e. they don't fully implement IMAP but use a 'de facto' standard. The 'de jure' way is elegant and efficient, Agree. As a mail system administrator I vote +1 for keeping the current method [the right way] as the default. ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Alternative to Evolution's trash handling
On 09/29/2009 09:36 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 08:35 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 13:39 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote: a large number of users seems to be disappointed [1] by Evolution's trash handling, which - according to [1] - also seems to cause issues with some broken IMAP server implementations. Are there any development efforts for an alternative trash handling playing nicely with broken IMAP server implementations (discussed under [2], referenced by [1b]), which could be activated via a simple button? I'm just asking because I've read a user request in a GNOME 2.28 release news [3] on a popular German website and the myriad of comments under [1] suggests that many users would appreciate the possibility of a different trash handling. [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206061 If you read to the bottom of that URL you'll see that Milan is working on this, but so far it's not on the roadmap for a stable version. The whole IMAP deletion issue is an example of the difference between 'de facto' and 'de jure' standards. IMAP defines deletion in a very specific way -- the 'de jure' standard -- and Evo implements the definition. Most other MUA's follow the real Trash folder model, i.e. they don't fully implement IMAP but use a 'de facto' standard. The 'de jure' way is elegant and efficient, Agree. As a mail system administrator I vote +1 for keeping the current method [the right way] as the default. I don't think the proposal was to change the default, but to add an option. I for one would stay with the current method. poc ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Alternative to Evolution's trash handling
On 09/29/2009 04:36 AM, Milan Crha wrote: On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 08:35 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206061 If you read to the bottom of that URL you'll see that Milan is working on this, but so far it's not on the roadmap for a stable version. Hi, not 'is', but 'was' working. The patches attached there (though marked as a plain text) are question for testing. I noticed some performance issues with them (could be because of my setup/server), thus if some users can test them and report issues on them, then we can improve them and maybe commit, in case there will be no side-effect of it. My opinion on suggested changes, like the one in comment #88 there, is that I would not like it, it sounds too complicated for ordinary users from my point of view. The proposal for how to represent the various options to the user does seems complicated. However it's worth noting that Thunderbird manages to have it both ways without a very baroque configuration dialogue. The default is move to Trash but you can get it to use mark deleted. It's still not perfect because it represents expunging as compacting folder but the effect is the same. TB also has a remove immediately option. I think that means mark and expunge (the docs are quite unclear on the whole issue). I'm not sure how if the average user will know that expunging affects the entire folder, not just the specific message. (Posting in TB 3b4 just to try it :-) poc ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Alternative to Evolution's trash handling
-Original Message- From: Patrick O'Callaghan p...@usb.ve To: evolution-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Evolution] Alternative to Evolution's trash handling Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:18:10 -0430 Mailer: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090922 Fedora/3.0-2.7.b4.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b4 On 09/29/2009 09:36 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 08:35 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 13:39 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote: a large number of users seems to be disappointed [1] by Evolution's trash handling, which - according to [1] - also seems to cause issues with some broken IMAP server implementations. Are there any development efforts for an alternative trash handling playing nicely with broken IMAP server implementations (discussed under [2], referenced by [1b]), which could be activated via a simple button? I'm just asking because I've read a user request in a GNOME 2.28 release news [3] on a popular German website and the myriad of comments under [1] suggests that many users would appreciate the possibility of a different trash handling. [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206061 If you read to the bottom of that URL you'll see that Milan is working on this, but so far it's not on the roadmap for a stable version. The whole IMAP deletion issue is an example of the difference between 'de facto' and 'de jure' standards. IMAP defines deletion in a very specific way -- the 'de jure' standard -- and Evo implements the definition. Most other MUA's follow the real Trash folder model, i.e. they don't fully implement IMAP but use a 'de facto' standard. The 'de jure' way is elegant and efficient, Agree. As a mail system administrator I vote +1 for keeping the current method [the right way] as the default. I don't think the proposal was to change the default, but to add an option. I for one would stay with the current method. poc What about a move to trash allure? Seems like that might satisfy Everyone's concern...Sometimes the technically correct choice isn't always practical ;-) Phil ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list Cheers, Phil attachment: face-wink.png___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Alternative to Evolution's trash handling
On 09/29/2009 10:56 AM, Philippe LeCavalier wrote: What about a move to trash allure? Seems like that might satisfy Everyone's concern...Sometimes the technically correct choice isn't always practical;-) You'll have to explain that. I don't know what you mean by trash allure. poc ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Alternative to Evolution's trash handling
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 11:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On 09/29/2009 10:56 AM, Philippe LeCavalier wrote: What about a move to trash allure? Seems like that might satisfy Everyone's concern...Sometimes the technically correct choice isn't always practical;-) You'll have to explain that. I don't know what you mean by trash allure. poc Just make the Trash folder act like the search folders. So you're keeping the mark for deletion style but a copy(linkto the msg) is visible in the Trash folder. This way you're not changing any protocol or technology applied, your just playing with the way deleted messages are seen...just a thought. Cheers, Phil ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Alternative to Evolution's trash handling
On 09/29/2009 11:37 AM, Philippe LeCavalier wrote: On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 11:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On 09/29/2009 10:56 AM, Philippe LeCavalier wrote: What about a move to trash allure? Seems like that might satisfy Everyone's concern...Sometimes the technically correct choice isn't always practical;-) You'll have to explain that. I don't know what you mean by trash allure. poc Just make the Trash folder act like the search folders. So you're keeping the mark for deletion style but a copy(linkto the msg) is visible in the Trash folder. This way you're not changing any protocol or technology applied, your just playing with the way deleted messages are seen...just a thought. How is that different from the way the Trash folder already works? Trash *is* a search folder. The contents are physically in the same place they were before being deleted. They haven't been moved (and don't have to be moved back if they're undeleted). That's the whole point. The Junk folder works the same way BTW. poc ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Alternative to Evolution's trash handling
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 12:07 -0400, Philippe LeCavalier wrote: On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 11:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On 09/29/2009 10:56 AM, Philippe LeCavalier wrote: What about a move to trash allure? Seems like that might satisfy Everyone's concern...Sometimes the technically correct choice isn't always practical;-) You'll have to explain that. I don't know what you mean by trash allure. Just make the Trash folder act like the search folders. So you're keeping the mark for deletion style but a copy(linkto the msg) is visible in the Trash folder. This way you're not changing any protocol or technology applied, your just playing with the way deleted messages are seen...just a thought. 1.) Wouldn't fix the issue for people who use multiple MUAs. 2.) Deleted messages in what folders would be included in the Trash search folder? Just INBOX, all personal folder, or all folders [including shared]? Even just all-personal could get really-frackin-huge; I know I wouldn't be too thrilled about a mail client that enumerated the contents of every folder I had access to. ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Alternative to Evolution's trash handling
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 14:26 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 12:07 -0400, Philippe LeCavalier wrote: On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 11:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On 09/29/2009 10:56 AM, Philippe LeCavalier wrote: What about a move to trash allure? Seems like that might satisfy Everyone's concern...Sometimes the technically correct choice isn't always practical;-) You'll have to explain that. I don't know what you mean by trash allure. Just make the Trash folder act like the search folders. So you're keeping the mark for deletion style but a copy(linkto the msg) is visible in the Trash folder. This way you're not changing any protocol or technology applied, your just playing with the way deleted messages are seen...just a thought. 1.) Wouldn't fix the issue for people who use multiple MUAs. 2.) Deleted messages in what folders would be included in the Trash search folder? Just INBOX, all personal folder, or all folders [including shared]? Even just all-personal could get really-frackin-huge; I know I wouldn't be too thrilled about a mail client that enumerated the contents of every folder I had access to. As I said before, *this is what Evo already does*. See for example http://www.go-evolution.org/FAQ#Why_do_I_have_two_Trash_folders_for_the_same_account.3F and http://www.go-evolution.org/FAQ#I_deleted_a_bunch_of_mail_but_my_mailbox_is_just_as_big_as_before._Why.3F poc ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Alternative to Evolution's trash handling
On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 13:39 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote: Dear evolution developers, a large number of users seems to be disappointed [1] by Evolution's trash handling, which - according to [1] - also seems to cause issues with some broken IMAP server implementations. Are there any development efforts for an alternative trash handling playing nicely with broken IMAP server implementations (discussed under [2], referenced by [1b]), which could be activated via a simple button? I'm just asking because I've read a user request in a GNOME 2.28 release news [3] on a popular German website and the myriad of comments under [1] suggests that many users would appreciate the possibility of a different trash handling. best regards, Christian Neumair [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206061 If you read to the bottom of that URL you'll see that Milan is working on this, but so far it's not on the roadmap for a stable version. The whole IMAP deletion issue is an example of the difference between 'de facto' and 'de jure' standards. IMAP defines deletion in a very specific way -- the 'de jure' standard -- and Evo implements the definition. Most other MUA's follow the real Trash folder model, i.e. they don't fully implement IMAP but use a 'de facto' standard. The 'de jure' way is elegant and efficient, but not interoperable with many other MUAs. The existence of an option would help with this (but probably not reduce the number of times we have to answer questions about it :-) poc ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
