Re: 'Delete' v. 'Move to trash'

[Pawel Salek <pawsa theochem kth se>]

On 01/08/2005 04:43:00 AM, Craig Routledge wrote:
> >  Besides, I do not quite get why one would want to have a  
> > physically   separate folder for trash. In other words: why   
> > Mailbox/Hide/(Un)deleted   does not work as a quick switch between  
> > mailbox and associated  trash. Is   it that such messages are  
> > deleted on close, or there is some other   reason? Because if this  
> > is the problem, I can imagine expunging  only  when   "empty Trash  
> > on exit" option is set. Opinions?
>
> Hmmm ... I'm not sure I understand some of the distinctions.
>
>  I have a separate trash file because it's setup by the wizard/druid   
> at first startup.  I've never had the use of an IMAP maildrop, so  
> I've  never   had to manage mail that way and don't know how it works  
> in practice.   Everything has always been local files for me.

OK, I understand. One can imagine the approach I recommend would be  
good for local systems too: instead of copying 20MB message to trash  
(and occupying double the space, unless maildir format would be used  
and tricks with linking, which we do not do now), it would have just  
have flag toggled. On can imagine the "Trash" folder being just a way  
to show deleted messages in current folder. This could save some  
resources if need be (no need to copy stuff). The only difficult thing  
to do would be to have such a virtual "Trash" folder to display  
messages from all the folders. Anyway, I am just toying with ideas  
here. I can imagine that people are just used to a model where trash is  
a separate mailbox.


>  I'm guessing that moving messages between folders on a remote  
> machine  via   IMAP is something people don't like doing much, hence  
> the need for  toggling   a delete flag instead.  Is that why?

Actually, if the trash folder was remote, copying the message to trash  
would be just as easy - the only problem is that copy may fail if quota  
limits would be exceeded.

> Are you suggesting getting rid of the whole move-to-trash method of
> deleting mail?

I would be fine with it - but I would like to know what other people  
think about this - perhaps it is too radical.

> How I like to work is to have all messages that I choose to "delete"
> go away immediately, to some place I can recover them from if I hit  
> the key on the wrong message or some such.  I have Trash  
> automatically purged at exit.  Granted, I could unhide tagged-deleted  
> message them to do the same  sort of immediate recovery.  But right  
> now that requires that I open up the  preferences dialog and do a lot  
> of clicking.  I suppose if the hide/unhide  deleted messages menu  
> item was given a single-key binding I could dispense with the trash  
> file and all move-to-trash functions.

Such a shorcut could be arranged for.

>  I think this
> whole  idea of two different ways of "deleting" messages is prone to  
> causing some confusion.

Yes, you are right in your analysis. Another difference between real  
(move-to-trash) and virtual (mark-as-deleted) trash models is that  
virtual trash folders are easiest to expunge on mailbox close: making  
them expunge messages on balsa exit may require opening them again,  
which may be time-consuming.

What I would like to know is whether such an idea is not too radical: I  
mean would it not be a too big shock for a person who has just switched  
from another program? For a complete beginner? I cannot tell myself.

Pawel