Subject: [sup-talk] sup-sync-back: killed threads and read status

From: [email-masked] (Pierre Baillet)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:02:12 +0200

Hi,

sup-sync-back does not seem to delete killed messages. I think, it should do
that.

Moreover, the "Read" status of emails is not changed in the original
mailbox. I'm not sure it's sup-sync-back job to do that, but the Principle
Of Least Surprise would probably expect that.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre Baillet <pierre at baillet.name>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/sup-talk/attachments/20071015/b0db3b0b/attachment.html

---

From: [email-masked] (Christopher Warrington)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 01:42:23 -0500

> sup-sync-back does not seem to delete killed messages. I think, it should do

That make sense to be. "Kill thread" (&) is more like "Ignore thread"
than "Delete thread" (d) (at least to me). I still want it in my index
in case I want to get something from it later. I am, however, no longer
interested in it or changes to it.

-- 
Christopher Warrington <chrisw at rice.edu>

---

From: [email-masked] (William Morgan)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:46:31 -0700

Excerpts from Pierre Baillet's message of Sun Oct 14 23:02:12 -0700 2007:
> sup-sync-back does not seem to delete killed messages. I think, it
> should do that.

It shouldn't delete them. A killed thread is a thread you don't want to
ever show up in the inbox, but that's not the same as wanting to delete
something. You may want to keep that thread around for later browsing or
searching.

GMail used to call them murdered threads, but changed the name to muted
threads in the release. Maybe I should call them "kept quiet" threads. :)

> mailbox. I'm not sure it's sup-sync-back job to do that, but the
> Principle Of Least Surprise would probably expect that.

I've purposely avoided writing changes back to the original sources,
since it's a world of pain, will never be 100% complete (Sup state is
much more complex than Maildir/IMAP/mbox state), and doesn't fit in the
Sup weltanshaung of treating sources as dumb buckets.

I will accept patches to sup-sync-back to set read/unread status, but
only grudgingly!

-- 
William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>