Hello, > there is a difference. deleting via imap just "moves" them to the trash > folder but in fact does not remove the mail from your account yet until > the user does empty the trash folder. > > but he suggested deleting the content of the trash folder even if the > user does not empty it! THIS is a violation against federal law. there > is a difference between an existing mail and a "rest" of a deleted mail > in the system.
I understand the initial statement. > >How far do you take this? Seems silly to me. The intent of a trashcan is > >clearly 2 things, a temporary storage mechanism to allow for the oops > > factor, and to mark items as not needed. If you provide for the oops > > factor, I think this is perfectly fair. > > (1) i do not make the law > (2) its not silly its a protection of peoples privacy > (3) i dont want ppl tellin me what to delete and when. it should be > *only* my decision. ;) 1) I'm sure that's true. 2) Privacy? Hmm.. I'll have to think about that one. Seems a strange stand to make considering all the other affronts on privacy that go on. Not that it makes this any less valid, it just seems a strange priority. 3) No one told you to put it in the trash can. If you want long-term storage, make an archive folder. If the system functionality includes a trash folder that maintains mail for undeleting for 30 days, and you put it in there and then sue me for removing it, that makes no sense to me still. > >Another example of government being silly IMHO.. > > depends of your point of view. e.g. if you are the postmaster or the > user... Everything is relative, and dependant on perspective. -Micah
