MBOX-Line: From witold.krecicki at firma.o2.pl  Mon Jun 14 12:35:58 2010
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Witold =?utf-8?q?Kr=C4=99cicki?= <witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:44 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Re: IMAP MOVE extension
In-Reply-To: <20100614192755.GC4182@dan.olp.net>
References: <201006110854.37969.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<201006141248.11054.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<20100614192755.GC4182@dan.olp.net>
Message-ID: <201006142135.58808.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>

On Monday 14 of June 2010 21:27:55 Dan White wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:22:36 +0200 Witold Kr?cicki wrote:
> >On Monday 14 of June 2010 12:13:57 Dave Cridland wrote:
> >> 1) I am not advocating that "people should just delete their mails".
> >> IMAP has a two phase delete, so I *am* advocating that clients - not
> >> people - should just mark emails as deleted.
> > 
> > Yet they don't.
> 
> I prefer not to make use of a Trash model. I have in the past, with
> different clients, but I don't find it particularly useful for me. I don't
> fault those who do use a Trash folder, since its may offer a level of
> safety they're comfortable with.
> 
> In an ISP setting, I generally recommend to our users that they do not use
> a Trash folder, since they tend to forget to clean it and then often open
> trouble tickets when they're over quota and can't figure out why. But we
> still give them the option of using it if they choose to.
> 
> We have a mix of POP3 and IMAP in our environment, but I'd guess that
> there's probably a majority of our IMAP users who do not make use of the
> Trash model (we decided to disable the use of Trash in our webmail client
> by default).
A model in which messages are deleted from trash after several days is a 
solution to that problem.
 
> >> 2) I concur that people like the trash can metaphor, and would encourage
> >> client authors to *use* IMAP's facilities to model same.
> > 
> > But they don't.
> 
> My client can probably do either, depending on how I configure it.
> Thunderbird can do either depending on configuration
> (mail.server.default.delete_model).  The Trash can is popular in many
> scenarios, but it's not universal either.
But it is popular.
 
> >> a) MOVE is simpler for client authors. However, client authors would
> >> still have to move messages without this extension, hence have to
> >> provide multiple codepaths to achieve the same - really quite simple -
> >> facility.
> > 
> > That's their choice, it's an EXTENSION hence they don't HAVE to use MOVE
> > functionality.  Yet MOVE enables user to move messages even if they're at
> > their quota limits, which is currently impossible with enforced quota
> > limits.
> 
> As someone previously pointed out in this thread, setting a different quota
> root on a user's Trash folder would make that possible. Even without that
> work around, a more typical scenario involves the user making a decision
> about which emails they can live without and having them delete those
> emails.
You're thinking about power users. 'Regular Joe' wants trash folder. And he 
doesn't understand why a simple 'move to trash' or 'move to another folder' 
(which should be 'move') causes his quota to be exceeded.

-- 
Witold Kr?cicki

Grupa o2 Sp??ka z o.o., ul. Jutrzenki 177, 02-231 Warszawa,
KRS 0000140518, S?d Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy, 
Kapita? zak?adowy 377.298,00 z?., NIP 521-31-11-513

