Re: per-folder options (was: Re: [Evolution-hackers] Mail VPaned vs. HPaned)

[Not Zed <notzed ximian com>]

On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 18:19 +0200, guenther wrote:
> > > * default account (From) when replying (based on open folder)
> >
> > This isn't that hard to do fwiw. 
>
> Probably -- but the hard part will be to come up with a polished UI to
> set per-folder options.
It doesn't have to be that polished imo.
> > > * signing/encryption
> > > * signatures
> > > * default folders (different Sent folder)
> >
> > These should be based on the account selected.  Otherwise its going to
> > be a nightmare for the user to configure it and a nightmare to code to
> > keep everything consistent. 
>
> Actually this is already possible by using outgoing filters, isn't it?
Yes, so you just set up a filter to do it.  IT shouldn't have a separate option for the reasons i outlined prevoiusly.

> Options like this sure must override the accounts default only, if set
> at all.
>
>
> > > * View, Threading, etc.  (already implemented, UI adjustment)
> >
> > ??? what do you mean? 
>
> This settings are available by the menu currently. Which is somewhat
> confusing, cause they really are per-folder options.
>
> So if we ever get per-folder settings implemented with a proper UI,
> those should get in there.
Not sure i agree.  the menu's are easy to get to and can be bound to keys.  A folder properties window (which we already have) can't be bound to keys.
> > > * display images in HTML mails
> > > * offline folders, spam filtering, filters in general
> >
> > ??? whats this got to do with it?
> > 
> > You mean select which folders to check for spam?  You want to filter
> > on all folders? 
>
> Actually... Yup, I want to. :)
But thats dumb.  If you're already getting mail in different folders it means you're doing server-side filtering.  Thats where it belongs.

> However, my only use case for filtering on all (nope, just a few ones)
> folders would be assigning labels. Cause labels are stored locally
> rather than on the IMAP server, I cannot assign them by server
> filtering.
>
> Anyway, just a quick thought, though. I am totally aware that this will
> cost a lot of resources (bandwidth and CPU) -- and the best solution
> would be to store labels on the IMAP server, if supported.
>
> ...guenther