On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 08:03:29PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> But I have an issue quite often, which I'll try to describe.
> 
>   (everything is about a single IMAP account)
> 
>   see INBOX, and view some message
> 
>   hit delete (which moves it to trash)
> 
>   realize I actually still want the message
> 
>   go back to folder list with upper left
> 
>   select trash
> 
>   see message at top, select it
> 
>   do move/refile/INBOX and get an error: "Cannot copy or move a message
>   which is not synchronized with the server"
> 
>   remember that in k-9, local modifications to folders are not synced
>   automatically, but only as part of doing a full folder sync
> 
>   hit sync, and have it push that message back to the server, remove
>   messages that are local but not longer on server, and get messages
>   deleted with other clients, limited to 100
> 
>   do the refile again and ahve it work
> 
> The issues are
> 
>   the user shouldn't have to be aware of whether a message is synced
>   back yet.  If it's in the local folder view it should be movable even
>   if the move operation is stacked behind the writeback operation.  Or
>   if the message is only in the local view, not synced, it can be moved
>   and the local state deleted, all without writing to the server.  I
>   know, this is hard, and ENOPATCH.
> 
>   another way to think of this is that there is the cached information
>   of server folder state, and then local modifications, kind of as a
>   writeback cache.  And things that operate on the folder should
>   function on a logical view that is the cache contents, not the pure
>   copy of the server.  Put this way, it's still hard :-)
> 
>   local modifications should arguably make it back to the server
>   automatically, perhaps with operations starting right away, perhaps
>   with a delay
> 
>   the idea of writing changes to the server while not fetching updates
>   (because this folder is not asked to be synced) is intrinisically
>   difficult, as it's a sort of partial sync with messy semantics.  But
>   it seems doable to write messages that are added, separately from
>   getting a list of server messages and fetching those we don't have and
>   deleting those that are no longer there.

I agree that this can be somewhat annoying. It's apparently a
long-standing issue: 

https://github.com/k9mail/k-9/issues/823

https://code.google.com/archive/p/k9mail/issues/861

But as with everything, it's a matter of developer time and interest.
Patches are always welcome.

--Sean

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "K-9 
Mail" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to