The ideal mail client?

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 10:43 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 09:58:15 -0430
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> 
> > * i.e. deleting a message simply marks it, and expunging a folder
> > removes marked messages. This is how IMAP is defined to work.
> 
> I've always hated that particular IMAP convention. Actually, I'd
> rather have a client that just did the dadgum delete when I told
> it to delete. If I didn't mean it, it is my fault - I already said
> delete, I don't want to have to say "expunge" or "empty trash" :-).

That would mean you couldn't undelete it. I think most of us have
deleted the occasional mail by mistake. (I know Claws does allow this as
an option).

Going somewhat OT now:

The problem with the "move to Trash" model is that there is no IMAP
"move" operation, so it really means "copy and remove the original".
This has two implications:

1) Copying can fail because of hard quota limitations. Unfortunately
this tends to happen exactly when the user is trying to delete a large
number of messages in order to get back below quota.

2) In some server implementations (<cough>mbox<cough>) removing the
message from its original folder doesn't even save space until the
folder is "compacted".

Note that a *virtual* Trash folder (as in Evo) neatly solves both of
these issues. It also means that undeletion means simply resetting the
\Deleted flag. The mailer doesn't have to remember where the message
came from and move it back (more inefficiency) since it never went
anywhere.

poc