76 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
76 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From blong at google.com Wed May 18 22:00:30 2011
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:46 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Beat up on Gmail
|
|
In-Reply-To: <4DD4617A.8040001@verizon.net>
|
|
References: <BANLkTimVNPwLV4gJ+aYCOGyDd-BN_Ka4PA@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
<4DD4617A.8040001@verizon.net>
|
|
Message-ID: <BANLkTikD8BmgibQcJ=cuAW_LzAerhcVK6w@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.net> wrote:
|
|
> On 05/18/2011 05:36 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
|
|
>>
|
|
>> I think this is a difference of opinion and not of fact. Obviously
|
|
>> Gmail and IMAP have different models of a mailbox, and our
|
|
>> implementation had to bridge these two models. ?You're implying that
|
|
>> we should have had folders which had no analogue in the web interface,
|
|
>> and we should have exposed IMAP labels as keywords and somehow solved
|
|
>> the same problem that this thread was asking about, perhaps as base32
|
|
>> encoded keywords.
|
|
>
|
|
> My experience over the past several years has been that people who use email
|
|
> clients instead of webmail tend to be a more overly conservative bunch of
|
|
> people than those who do not use them. In that vein, the people who would be
|
|
> accessing Gmail over IMAP would probably have preferred the traditional
|
|
> folder model over Gmail's label concepts; I remember my disappointment to
|
|
> have discovered that my "normal" email usage model just didn't well with
|
|
> Gmail's implementation (what? delete doesn't actually delete the mail?)
|
|
|
|
Its not the default, no, but there is a setting for that. You
|
|
currently have to enable the Advanced IMAP settings lab, and then you
|
|
can select that delete means "move to trash" or "delete forever". It
|
|
applies to the message when its been removed from the last visible
|
|
folder.
|
|
|
|
There's also a setting to disable auto-expunge. Both of these were
|
|
the defaults originally, but were changed when testing clearly showed
|
|
that the expected user experience matched somewhat with what Mark
|
|
said: people expected a Gmail like experience in their client. The
|
|
main use and clients turned out to be mobile devices, the number of
|
|
users who use a desktop IMAP client to access Gmail is pretty tiny.
|
|
|
|
As for Outlook, we've had a bunch of weird issues with it, and instead
|
|
we wrote a plug-in for Outlook, which also gave us the ability to sync
|
|
contacts and calendar, no IMAP involved:
|
|
http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/outlook_sync.html
|
|
|
|
I'm sure these settings aren't the full picture, most flags/keywords
|
|
still apply to the message across folders, for example, and I'm sure
|
|
there are a couple other ones.
|
|
|
|
>> No client our users actually used would have done
|
|
>> anything with the keywords,
|
|
>
|
|
> If this information were made public, I'm sure knowledgeable people would
|
|
> have asked for some kind of standardization in this regard.
|
|
>
|
|
> P.S. Gmail is not the Google product I reserve special ire for... that would
|
|
> be Google Groups. But that is a rant well off-topic for this, er, mailing
|
|
> list.
|
|
|
|
My team has recently taken over the mail handling aspects of Groups,
|
|
if you have requests, feel free to forward them to me off list.
|
|
They're also working on the new web interface, available here:
|
|
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!overview
|
|
|
|
If you're talking about it being a Usenet gateway, then I probably
|
|
already know the rant.
|
|
|
|
Brandon
|
|
--
|
|
?Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
|
|
?Staff Engineer
|
|
?Gmail Delivery TLM
|
|
|