Timo Sirainen wrote : > Hmm. Maybe it'd work just as well without the virtual trashcan if everything > else was there :) Currently I'm just annoyed at seeing the deleted messages > there so I expunge them immediately (and sometimes wish I hadn't), but I'm > afraid to just hide the deleted messages since then I'd never remember to > expunge them.
How many virtual trash mailboxes will you show to the user ? one per mailbox ? or one global ? - In the case of one global trash mailbox, that will be painful for the server to run through all the mailboxes to search the deleted messages. - And in the case of one trash mailbox per mailbox, this will be bugging the view of the user. (About forgetting to expunge them, you know that Users of standard clients with a trash mailbox always forget to empty them :) ). > I'm not saying we should depricate ENVELOPE, but I don't think it's fare to > consider clients not using it as behaving badly either, simply because > servers might have been more optimized to fetch ENVELOPEs. And we use less use of bandwidth with ENVELOPE and combinaison of specific headers. > > BODYSTRUCTURE is another matter. Clients which don't use BODYSTRUCTURE > > and BODY[...] waste bandwidth, particularly with large MIMEgrams. > > I think BODYSTRUCTURE is a bit bloaty too and doesn't give enough > information to clients which want more than what it provides. > FETCH BODY.PEEK[*.HEADER.FIELDS (...)] would be a nice addition. what do you mean by BODY.PEEK[*.HEADER.FIELDS (...)] ? I can't see what is exactly missing. -- DINH V. Hoa, "�a doit �tre une racaille pour �tre aussi con" -- Cent-Quarante-Six
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
