Subject: missing folders

From: Antoine Jacoutot <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Jun 2002 11:56:35 +0200

Hi !

I have a problem with my imapd server.
One of my users doesn't have the Drafts, Sent and Trash folders... he
only have the INBOX folder.
I tried to recreate the account, but it didn't change anything.
How can those special folders be recreated ?
Thanks in advance for your help.

Antoine

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/imap/c-client-list.html
------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:43:26 -0700 (PDT)

> How can those special folders be recreated ?

There is no such thing as a Drafts, Sent, or Trash mailbox.  There is only
such a thing as INBOX.

Anything else ia a private name for the user or a program that the user uses.

Trash, in particular, is completely unnatural for c-client and IMAP; and is
done only by programmers of clients who don't understand IMAP.

---

From: Vadim Zeitlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:12:18 +0200 (CET)

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:43:26 -0700 (PDT) Mark Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:

MC> Trash, in particular, is completely unnatural for c-client and IMAP; and is
MC> done only by programmers of clients who don't understand IMAP.

 I'd like to know why do you think so? What is unnatural about "deleting"
the messages by moving them to trash and expunging it later? My client
provides both a pine-like and a trash-based operation mode and allows the
user to choose which one to use but personally I know which one I prefer
(hint: I hate how Pine handles this).

 So what are the arguments against using trash?

 Thanks,
VZ

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 08:18:25 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:12:18 +0200 (CET), Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> the messages by moving them to trash and expunging it later?
>

"Move to trash and expunge later", implemented by an actual Trash mailbox, is
not reversible.  A message can not be restored the way it was.

The native IMAP model, on the other hand, is reversible.

It is completely possible to implement the GUI of a Trash can without
requiring an actual Trash mailbox.  It just requires creativity.

---

From: Vadim Zeitlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 20:51:15 +0200 (CET)

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 08:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Mark Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:

MC> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:12:18 +0200 (CET), Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
MC> >  So what are the arguments against using trash?
MC> 
MC> "Move to trash and expunge later", implemented by an actual Trash mailbox, is
MC> not reversible.  A message can not be restored the way it was.

 Why not? Granted, I didn't do it yet (due to lack of time) but this is
exactly what I'm going to do -- the UIDs of the messages moved to Trash are
remembered and if the user chooses "undo" they are pulled back to the
original folder. Ok, their msgno will change -- but this shouldn't matter
much.

MC> It is completely possible to implement the GUI of a Trash can without
MC> requiring an actual Trash mailbox.

 I don't see how. One of the big advantages of Trash is that it is
persistent. I clean up my trash only every week or even more rarely which
means that if I receive a reply later and I realized that I forgot the
original context I may find it in 9 cases out of 10 in the trash.

 So although it is possible to emulate Trash without actually moving the
messages, it isn't as safe as using the real thing. And, besides, why
bother?

 Regards,
VZ

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:58:54 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

> original folder. Ok, their msgno will change -- but this shouldn't matter

You can not "put back" a UID that has been removed.  UIDs must be strictly
ascending.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.

---

From: Vadim Zeitlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:57:08 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time)

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:58:54 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) Mark Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:

MC> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
MC> >  Why not? Granted, I didn't do it yet (due to lack of time) but this is
MC> > exactly what I'm going to do -- the UIDs of the messages moved to Trash are
MC> > remembered and if the user chooses "undo" they are pulled back to the
MC> > original folder. Ok, their msgno will change -- but this shouldn't matter
MC> > much.
MC> 
MC> You can not "put back" a UID that has been removed.  UIDs must be strictly
MC> ascending.

 Yes, but this is irrelevant here. Maybe I was unclear, so let me explain:
I meant that I [am going to] remember their UIDs in the trash folder
and if the user wants to undo the delete operation I move these UIDs from
the trash back to the current folder.

 Regards,
VZ

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:05:34 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

> the trash back to the current folder.

But then you have not restored the message to its previous state.

Instead, you have created a new copy with a new UID.

This also causes a lot more work for disconnected clients.

-- Mark --