On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, DINH [iso-8859-15] Vi$Bj(Bt Ho$B`(B wrote:
could you be more explicit about the problem with delete-expunge model and unsolicited data model ?
Many clients wish to present a "trashcan" type graphical model, and expect the server to implement that model by means of a "Trash" or "Deleted Items" mailbox. That is, instead of treating the "trashcan" as a client based graphical concept that maps to deleted messages, these clients want the server to do the "move to trash"/"restore from trash" operations as operations between the selected mailbox and the trash mailbox.
As a general comment for those supporting/using GUI IMAP clients, I would make the following observation concerning problems with the "move to trash" and "delete immediately" options provided by mainstream GUI clients.
- "move to trash" is especially troublesome in an environment that uses quotas, as deleting mail by moving it to the trash does not in itself resolve an overquota condition and will cause overquota conditions to occur when a users' remaining quota is less than the total size of messages being deleted.
- "delete immediately" - I have seen numerous situations where a user thinks they have no messages to be deleted, when in fact they have hundreds of messages that have been "deleted" by the client and appropriately updated in the local client cache, but for whatever reason are still on the server. Deleting local cache files causes the local cache indices to be regenerated, but very few users would think to do this.
I have also noticed a number of users here who have a significant volume of messages (from 30 to 200 megs) in their Trash folder which for some reason have not been deleted. While I can not be sure of the cause, I hazard to guess that many of these users have no idea that those messages are in the Trash folder (this was the case with one user that had 250 megs of Trash.)
Cheers, Tom
-- Tom Karches email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Systems Administrator phone : 919.515.5508 NCSU Information Technology
