Re: Re[4]: getting UID of a message copied to another mailbox?

On Apr 17 2010, Mark Crispin wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Brian Hayden wrote:
>> Quote the dictionary all you want; while I agree with you in an ideal
>> world, people have been conditioned by 25 years of GUI metaphors that say
>> otherwise, which is why the purist recommendations are broken.
>
>Except that the way that the Trash IMAP clients (double meaning intended)
>implement the GUI metaphor is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than how the GUI Trash
>metaphor is implemented elsewhere.

Blanket assertion.

>A study is useless if the data is biased.

Tautology.

>But, go ahead; keep on doing the same thing and expect different results.

No, in fact. I think the common trash model is entirely broken, and my 
clients have not used it. But because your thinking is entirely black and 
white, you assume that one must be "doing the same thing" just because one 
recognizes that wishful thinking and dictionary definitions don't tell us 
the whole story.

>Gmail's implementation made the mistake of layering IMAP on top which is
>the wrong place to put IMAP.  But at least Gmail rejected all of the
>"truths" about what users expect from a GUI that you claim that "people
>have been conditioned by 25 years".  Gmail did something different, and
>got different results.

Yes. Shockingly, when there is nothing called "Trash" people don't think 
about trash. Of course, what gives Google this luxury is not available to 
most sites. But, go ahead; keep on applying the same standards to different 
problems.

>Try thinking outside of the box.

Indeed.

-Brian

_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw