I invite you to read the bloody spec and show me where it says to hide dot files. if you can't find it, then I'm not implementing it. period.
Jeff On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 15:14, Scott Otterson wrote: > If Outlook and Mozilla (>90% of all IMAP clients by user) don't display > dotfiles, then that IS the convention. > > Evolution isn't following it. > > Scott > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 12:02, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > if there was a convention, it would be in the server implementation - > > WHERE IT BELONGS > > > > Jeff > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 14:53, Scott Otterson wrote: > > > Unix again... > > > > > > Outlook and Mozilla -- two of the most popular non-Unix IMAP clients -- > > > do not display dotfiles, regardless of what LIST returns. There's a > > > convention here that evolution isn't following. > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 11:23, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > > > hiding dot files is a unix filesystem thing, it is not an imap thing. > > > > > > > > if folders starting with a . were meant to be hidden by imap clients, > > > > then the server simply wouldn't return them in the LIST query, now would > > > > it? > > > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 13:28, Scott Otterson wrote: > > > > > I don't see what the OS has to do with this. > > > > > > > > > > Mozilla and Outlook -- neither of which require Unix -- hide the > > > > > dotfiles. If two of the most popular IMAP clients handle this situation > > > > > gracefully, then this is starting to look like an OS-independent IMAP > > > > > convention. > > > > > > > > > > Has anybody noticed how other IMAP clients handle dotfiles? > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 10:07, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > > > > > imap != unix filesystem > > > > > > > > > > > > period. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 13:06, Scott Otterson wrote: > > > > > > > Well, manually subscribing to a bunch of folders is a way to handle > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Mozilla and Outlook are smarter than that... can't evolution be too? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 09:45, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > > > > > > > this is a server issue, not a client issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if your server uses dot files for state info, then it should not be > > > > > > > > listing them when we query for folders. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > however, you *could* simply have evo show only subscribed folders and > > > > > > > > just not subscribe to the dot folders. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 12:21, Scott Otterson wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is there a way to set up evolution to not display IMAP status dot > > > > > > > > > folders? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The UW IMAP server I'm hooked to has a lot of folders beginning with > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > period. I never look at them because they contain account info, spam > > > > > > > > > filter status and so on. They're invisible in the folder views of > > > > > > > > > mozilla, outlook express, etc., but they fill up the screen in > > > > > > > > > evolution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there an evolution XML file somewhere that I can change? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
