On Wed Jun 12 06:30:02 PM Jan Kundrát wrote: > On Wednesday, 12 June 2013 18:02:13 CEST, Vayu wrote: > > Thanks, I just compiled from Git and now it is saving my > > positions. It doesn't save my column sort order though. > > I guess this could be added, even though it's a rather expensive operation on > servers without support for CONTEXT=SORT (and no servers doing that are in > the wild). So this is a matter of preference -- do we want to waste bandwidth > by requesting data all over again, whenever a new message arrives, or do we > force users to use the default sort order on restart? >
I haven't considered the expense. The ability to have my message list sorted upon entering a folder and remember that is a feature I use on kmail, thunderbird and claws mail. I haven't been inconvenienced by the performance of any of them except for kmail needing a database server on my system to run. (I love the functionality, user interface and configurability of kmail. It's needing system wide components to run that I would like to get away from.) > > Also, Is there a way to have it start in the inbox? > > Not yet, please file a feature request about that. It's not going to be very > trivial due to the asynchronous nature of IMAP, so it will take some time > before it's implemented. > > > The way it is now, a messages is displayed as soon as I select > > it. I'm forced to see the content of emails I don't want to see > > and I have to go through an extra step to see the messages I do > > want to see. I can move the message view until it's not > > visible, but a message is still marked read when I select it. > > (and I'm stuck with 2 opens to see a message with images) > > Thanks for a detailed overview, your use case makes sense. I've made a change > [1] which will prevent loading a message (and marking it as read) when the > message pane is collapsed away. That is helpful. > > I'm not sure whether adding a checkbox which will enable loading of remote > images all the time is the way to go. Perhaps an option for specifying the > whitelisted domains makes more sense? Or is the granularity of domains a > wrong one here? I'd like to hear opinions, both from you and from other > people on the list. > The granularity of domains would be an improvement, but it would add another tedious chore similar to maintaining filters. For myself, I prefer a single setting. > Cheers, > Jan > > [1] https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/110978/ > >
