MBOX-Line: From dwhite at olp.net  Mon Jun 14 12:27:55 2010
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Dan White <dwhite@olp.net>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:44 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Re: IMAP MOVE extension
In-Reply-To: <201006141248.11054.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
References: <201006110854.37969.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<201006120124.53714.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<29965.1276510437.099598@puncture>
	<201006141248.11054.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
Message-ID: <20100614192755.GC4182@dan.olp.net>

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).

>> 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.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:48:11 +0200 Witold Kr?cicki wrote:
>On Monday 14 of June 2010 12:13:57 Dave Cridland wrote:
>> This is amusing. Your argument appears to be that a sensible, common,
>> implementation of a mandatory protocol feature is, somehow, undesirable.
>>
>> Your overall argument also appears to be that:
>>
>> 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.

-- 
Dan White

