Mikael Byström wrote: >One blatant error in your suggestion is that it requires that the 'smart' >in your smart folders is more or less perfect. Are you sure you would >like to rely on the current search technology with its limitations for >organizing your messages? You know of the limitations, right?
It seems at least I don't, because I envision smart folders the solution to several issues I have now (like a persistent RMW across launches, the same message filed in different folders at the same time like for the specific person and the folder of the project we're working on, or a folder "today's mail" containing both incoming an outgoing messages of today, e.g.). It's a shift in paradigms, granted, but it is simpler for my understanding: Whereas now, a central, huge list of filters distributes messages into a list of seperately, manually managed list of folders, with smart folders, a folder itself has the info attached what it should contain, i.e. each folder grabs instead of a central distributes. Or, whereas now, if I want to see which kind of messages wind up in a certain folder, I do have to wade through dozens of filter rules, checking which ones (!) have a "move to this folder" action, and check its conditions, with Smart Folders I'd click on the folder I'm interested in and would be presented immediately with only the rules that actually fill this specific folder. Why wouldn't this work with the current search technology? What is the vital limitation? I'd really like to know, since I don't see it at the moment. To make this fast is an implementation detail, IMO - of course messages would cache the info to which folder they belong, and this cache would only need to be updated when filter rules are edited or messages are created/received. We may probably need the global filter list also in a Smart Foldered PM for special cases where the filter is a trigger for some action only. But this list would become very small and manageable - at least for what I'm doing. Regards, Christian.
