On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 12:41 +0200, Oliver Horn wrote: > Well, why is evolution not able to subscribe to this folders as the mail > server provides them and is instead creating virtual ones? Thunderbird > for instance can do that.
There are really two issues here, because Trash and Junk need not be treated the same (though Evo does treat them pretty much the same). Trash is done the way it is because that's how IMAP is defined. Deletion of a message is done in two stages, a) mark the message as \Deleted, b) at some later date Expunge the folder. Other mailers do this differently, mainly because they try to map message deletion onto the mental model of file deletion on desktops, i.e. move the object to a Trash folder and once in a while empty it. However doing this on IMAP is inefficient (because the message is being copied -- note that IMAP has no "move" operation) and can in rare cases block the user because of quota limitations (leading to a situation where you can't delete your mail to free up space because your quota won't allow it to be copied). Evo follows the IMAP model closely. Deleted messages remain in place and are not copied anywhere. Trash is simply a virtual (or search) folder that shows all the \Deleted messages wherever they happen to be. This has a nice side-effect: when you undelete a message Evo simply removes the \Deleted flag. It doesn't need to remember where the message used to be and move it back as other mailers do. Furthermore, Evo also applies this model to other mailstores even if they don't use IMAP. Moving on to Junk: the difference here is that IMAP has no builtin concept of Junk, so Evo simply uses its own implementation and for simplicity copies the Trash model. If you don't like this, feel free to ask for an enhancemente at http://bugzilla.gnome.org. poc _______________________________________________ Evolution-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
