Re: Virtual Trash Folder

[Pawel Salek <pawsa theochem kth se>]

On 09/18/2005 05:01:41 PM, Craig Routledge wrote:
> Back in Januray there was a thread entitled
>  "Re: 'Delete' v. 'Move to trash'".
>
> See  
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/balsa-list/2005-January/msg00002.html
> for the start of the thread.
>
> The idea was to collapse the two different kinds of delete into one  
> while preserving existing functionality.  This would be less  
> confusing to new users and would simplify the interface.  It could  
> also be the basis for generic user-definable virtual folders.
>
> My understanding is that it would go something like this:
>
> * actual messages remain in their original mailbox with
>   deleted flag set
> * Trash is no longer a real mailbox, but an index consisting
>   of pointers to messages marked as deleted in the various
>   mailboxes
> * keep the "Hide (/unhide) messages marked as deleted"
>   preference

Correct on all three points.

> * deleting from Trash folder permanently deletes message

That's an possibility - apart from the fact that IMAP does not support  
selective expunge of messages[1], only entire mailboxes - but perhaps  
this could be solved differently.

> Questions
>
> - what about non-local mailboxes and synchronization?

IMAP mailboxes introduce no new problems as far as I can see.

>    - do we keep a persistent state?

Persistent state is equally difficult for local and non-local  
mailboxes? It's possibly easier for IMAP because one could just  
remember UIDVALIDITY/UID pairs while there is no easy way to do the  
same for local mailboxes (unless we assume balsa is the only client -  
perhaps that's not such a bad assumption).

>    - do we have a lazy update? (items don't appear in
>      Trash until remote mailbox is checked?)

It's a question of taste but I would rather not make the update  
obligatory.

>    - other ideas?
>
> - still use expunge (per mailbox), or just "Empty Trash"
>   (all mailboxes)?

Both?

> - what about same message in two different mailboxes?
>    - should be okay if both are clearly labeled in terms
>      of originating mailbox

I do not know... I have more questions: How do you uniquely identify a  
message? What about procmail/sieve delivering copies of the same  
message to different mailboxes?

> Comments?

You asked many good questions that are not so easy to answer :). Also,  
another question to ask is: what do we really win by doing it? You  
named virtual folders - and that's probably the biggest advantage. In  
principle, IO load could decrease (apart from the potential problems  
with tracking deleted messages between sessions) but was it ever a  
problem?

Pawel

[1] unless UIDPLUS extension is present.