On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 07:34:24AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote: > however if mutt considers to implement a very low quality trash, what does > that mean ? > > 1/ Mutt developpers are lazy ;) > 2/ There are so few people needing a trash by default that it > really doesn't worth to implement a trash > 3/ Mutt folks consider that having a trash is a bad idea and > they don't want to push people in using it.
I think a combination of 2+3. But I would really like to see cd's trash folder patch integrated into mutt. I think there are enough reasons that this approach is better than the macro approach, and there are enough people who like to have a "trash" folder, that it makes sense to do this. w
