MBOX-Line: From mrc+uw at panda.com  Wed Dec 30 11:19:49 2009
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc+uw@panda.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:43 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Childless noselect mailboxes
In-Reply-To: <4218.1262179770@succubus.panacea.null.org>
References: <1262106049.26478.745.camel@timo-desktop>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.0912290938230.18442@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<1262111858.26478.842.camel@timo-desktop>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.0912291042070.18442@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<1262114250.26478.864.camel@timo-desktop>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.0912300000110.22394@Higashi-Tomobiki>
	<Gophermail.2.0.0912300657280.23421@vs-w.tc.umn.edu>
	<4218.1262179770@succubus.panacea.null.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.2.00.0912301053270.2128@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009, Joel Reicher wrote:
> A MIME part can contain text data too.

A MIME part can contain a completely separate message too.

> I think it's likely that users view messages as the "privileged" container
> that is at the end of the name hierarchy only because they are using
> interfaces that place it there.

I agree.  Usability studies are rarely conducted in a completely unbiased 
and controlled setting; and thus quite often lead to predetermined 
answers.  Thus, we have atrocities (like the Microsoft ribbon or the Apple 
single-button mouse) which we were assured that usability studies had 
proven were the perfect interface.

The problem is that the very questions and framework of the study bias the 
answer.  It's like the political opinion polls commissioned by a political 
party.

> Being a container does not, in itself,
> seem to give messages any kind of special status, because lots of other
> things are containers too.

Yup.  Messages are not the end node of the name hierarchy; the mailbox is. 
If a message was the end node of the name hierarchy, there would be no 
need to select the mailbox prior to accessing the mailbox.  Select is a 
very different operation from descending the name hierarchy, and creates a 
very complex state.

It's easy to dismiss all this, because only a few IMAP clients are 
sophisticated enough to take advantage of this state.  The vast majority 
are glorified POP clients that babble IMAP protocol.  This came about 
because of the long-obsolete notion that Internet access is a difficult 
and expensive commodity that requires that the client must keep a mirror 
of what's on the server.  The success of webmail (which transforms the 
browser into the ultimate thin client) proves that this notion is complete 
nonsense today.  Yet people persist in claiming it.

Webmail won the war for the hearts and minds of users, not because webmail 
is so much better than IMAP, but rather because webmail is so much better 
than POP.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

