Il mer, 2002-12-18 alle 14:00, Arthur S. Alexion ha scritto: > On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 04:05, carlo piana wrote: > > Il mar, 2002-12-17 alle 13:30, Arthur S. Alexion ha scritto: > > > On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 03:32, carlo piana wrote: > > > > A feature I would like to have is the ability to control the server > > > > status on the POP server. I.E. to keep messages and delete them after a > > > > fixed date, and/or to delete them on demand, a feature which Eudora does > > > > perfectly in W$. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Il mer, 2002-12-04 alle 18:16, Derek Denk ha scritto: > > > > > One thing I'd like to see in evolution is an option to save replies to > > > > > messages in the same folder as the original message. > > > > > > I think both of these "features" can be implemented by the user just > > > writing a simple rule. > > > > > > For instance, I have rules that sort incoming mail into separate > > > mailboxes based on a mailing list. All I would have to do is have the > > > rule apply to outgoing as well as incoming mail. > > > > This is not entirely correct for what concerns my problem. I do not see > > how a rule can affect the (in)ability to delete a message *on the server > > side* at a certain date. All we can do now is to delete *or* to keep the > > messages altogether. A feature which allowed to delete selected messages > > from server and not others would permit, for instance, to delete spam > > and infected messages from the POP server preventing from multiple > > downloads in an environment where several people access the same > > mailbox. This could be for instance useful for people downloading same > > messages from different locations. > > > > I know that this is not exactly the paradigm for which POP is meant to > > work, yeah, I know that this is an IMPAP thing, but nonetheless it is > > allowed and works with other mailers (none of which under *nix, AFAIK). > > My Apologies, Carlo, you are right. I was thinking of the local > mailboxes, not the server copy. > > Derek's problem (replies in the same box as as the original) can be > solved with a rule, though. > > I think you are right that most *nix MUAs don't support this on POP. > Probably for the same reason that I understand Ximian refuses to > implement it. There is a philosophy that this is something that should > be solved with IMAP, not POP. Unfortunately some of us do not run our > own servers, and some or our ISPs (mine included) refuse to support > IMAP. Like many others, I have tried to use rules/filters to make POP > emulate IMAP features.
Yeah, that's my point. I cannot afford (in terms of security and of dedicated resources) to have a pop server in my office, and rely on my ISP's. Although I have quite a large connection, I understand that IMAP is somewhat heavier to manage than POP, for that it implies client/server database transactions and is not viable for low bandwidth connection (not that this is my case, though). Ximian, like many others, should remember that it is easier to pull a rope than to push it... I mean, not always the "best" solution is the most viable and effective (think of Internet as opposed to early 90's private hight bandwidth networks, or Dinosaurus vs. Mammals). Plus, it works, doesn't hurt anybody, use it! ;) -- carlo piana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
