> What is the difference between deleted messages in Trash and deleted > messages in other folders? I am not sure if I understand...
For example, it is much easier to search your trash for some message you deleted and now you want to get back. But let me get back to main question, which started "Trash folders" thread: as for the COPY command, I really miss its counterpart: MOVE. While COPY / STORE / EXPUNGE algorithm seems to be attractive for some uses, for most it is not. If you consider the most obvious case of mail usage (and I did check this on statistics of more than one million users of our site, so they probably must be right ;-)), people mostly MOVE letters, not copy them. Say, who of you creates several copies of your messages in different folders? I bet none. So without MOVE command you have big overhead: first, you must copy message. The entry appears in both folders, database of letters in folders grows. Not to mention the actual mailstorage overhead - you must create the copy of the message, which 1) consumes disc space, 2) requires you to move heads of your hard disc and read the message, and write it. And what for? Just to delete the original miliseconds afterwards. If you have efficient mail storage, that is some sort of maildir format with each letter well separated, the implementation of MOVE is very efficient - you just move the file around, without actually peeking into it. In our case, we actually extended the IMAP protocol to support such command - otherwise our disc load would increase by about 20%. And that is a lot. I do not see any reason to have both COPY and MOVE implemented. The MOVE could simply behave such as if the message was transparently marked for deletion and expunged in one transaction, with EXPUNGE unsolicited response, or something. Cheers, Marek.
