On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 07:02 +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 14:42 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 17:54 +0000, Pete Biggs wrote: > > > Also you should consider the process that is necessary to delete a > > > message under the two schemes - for the Evo/IMAP model all you need to > > > do is a single "mark as deleted" operation over IMAP followed at some > > > later time by an expunge; for the "move to trash" paradigm you need to > > > do a "copy message to folder" (IMAP only has a copy operation), "mark > > > message as deleted in original folder", "expunge original folder". > > > The > > > killer is that the "expunge" operation is a time costly process, but > > > if > > > you don't do the expunge you will be left with lots of messages marked > > > for deletion in the original folder. It may be OK if you are deleting > > > a > > > single message - but I often delete 100s or 1000s at a time... > > > > +1 > > > > To the OP: just to be clear, you can't expunge a single message in IMAP, > > only an entire folder. This means that the paradigm of "delete by moving > > the message to Trash" *cannot* be implemented strictly by any conforming > > IMAP server, since IMAP doesn't have a "move" operation, as Pete says. > > Or to be more precise, it can be done if that's the only form of > > deletion you ever use (because the originating folder is being expunged > > for every deletion). The beauty of the IMAP model is that undeletion > > then becomes trivial: just remove the mark. You don't have to move > > messages around or remember where they originally came from. > > > > poc > > Just to add something everyone has neglected to mention so far > > http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=78755
If you check the thread again you'll see that I did mention it. poc _______________________________________________ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
