[imp] imp questions (usability issues)

[Max Kalika]

Just got back on the list and already made a mistake.  Please excuse the double 
posting.

Before I get into specifics let me share what I had in mind for the future of 
imp filters.  Open for discussion, of course.  I briefly mentioned this to 
Chuck, but I can't remember which points were not acceptable so I'll just list 
them all.

1) add support for rule names.  this would allow listing filters by their name 
instead of function because if we start adding more than one criteria/action 
per rule, the listing can get rather ugly.  this would also allow us to do a 
sensible drop-down field for applying specific rules instead of them all.

2) maybe add date fields to filter on and have some standard date actions such 
as "message is older than 1/5/10/30 days old" or somesuch. (no specific details 
yet).

3) add setting flags on messages as a rule action.

4) allow for adding more than one criteria/action per rule. e.g. copy message 
to folder a, and copy message to folder b, and mark message important.

5) hopefully get and/or rules to work (this is a goal for the search page as 
well).

6) set a trigger on a rule: 'manual', or 'on arrival'.

7) move the actual rule running code into its own class and fix some of the 
outstanding bugs (primarily not using Horde::getFormData() for input retreival).

Quoting Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck@horde.org>:

> Quoting Jeff Tucker <jefft@wciatl.com>:
> 
> > FILTERS
> > - It's non-intuitive to me that I have to manually apply the filters. It 
> > would be nice if every time the mail Inbox display was generated, the 
> > filters were applied. When I login, my "imp" filter gets applied but never
> > again unless I click a button. I'd like to see the filter applied when the
> > Inbox refreshes to show new mail, or when I return to the Inbox from 
> > somewhere else.
> 
> This sounds like it would be another good preference.

yes, either pref or setting a trigger on a rule -- depends on what is more 
useable.

> > - I haven't been able to figure out a reasonable (IMO) way to handle 
> > filters and deleted messages. When I enter my mailbox, it might say I have
> > 44 new messages. 25 of those are imp messages which have actually already
> > been deleted from my Inbox, yet they still show up (as deleted). So, when I
> > login, I invariably have to "Purge Deleted" first to get my Inbox to a 
> > reasonable view.
> 
> It sounds like it might be a good idea to add an option to a filter for
> whether or not to expunge after running it, or a general option to expunge 
> after running all filters.

I don't know if expunging after running filters is a good idea.  AFAIK there's 
no way to expunge specific message id's -- its either all or nothing for a 
given mailbox.  There may be other deleted mail expunged besides the filtered.  
It might cause more headaches to have this in place.  I'm of course speaking 
from my users' perspective.  And as Chuck said...there is such a thing as too 
many options. (Don't know if it applies here, but I have to quote him at least 
once a month) :-)

> > Now, I tried setting delete mail to actually move to Trash. This works for
> > mail delete by clicking delete, but doesn't work for filtered mail. So, I
> > end up with the same problem. I thought about setting up "Hide Deleted". 
> > However, it's not clear to me that those messages will EVER get purged. 
> > After a month, I could end up with 1000 deleted imp messages hiding in my
> > Inbox.
> 
> I'd be interested to know why this doesn't work for filters; the filtering
> code calls the IMP_Message::delete method, which should obey the trash folder 
> preference.

Uhm...I'll try to look into it soon if no one gets to it.

> > - When I click on Options->Filters->Edit my Filters, I get to a screen with
> > no visible way back except the toolbar on top. All the other Options 
> > screens have a "Return to Options" button.
> 
> This should be added.

Yes, it's in my nag. :-)

> > - I couldn't find an obvious way to filter on the string "[imp]". I can 
> > filter on "imp" but that matches "import" and other words. Should the 
> > filter allow non-alphabetic characters? If it already does, should this be
> > added to the Help for that line? I tried "[imp]", [imp], \[imp\], but none
> > worked.
> 
> Hmm. Not sure why that doesn't work, though it might have to do with the 
> imap_search stuff. Max, any luck with this?

Jeff, can you try using the [imp] string on the search page?  I am personally 
having some funky problems with multi-word searches which prevents me from 
using them in filters.  I think it has something to do with my mail server, but 
I haven't had time to fully investigate.  But if you are unable to search for 
[imp] (no special characters or backspace magic -- it should just work) then 
try digging in your server setup.  Try another client too.  Please let the list 
know what you find.

> > - It would be nice if I could filter on a couple more fields. I know 
> > everyone will have their own personal list, but I think Sender and 
> > Mailing-List would cover most situations I can see. Many mailing lists do
> > not put their name in the Subject line and I really like filters to put 
> > mailing list traffic into its own folders.
> 
> If you can test these and make sure they work with the imap_search code, go
> for it.

See above.  I don't know how extensive all the c-client search functions are in 
php, but I'll try to use most of the ones that work. :-)

> > DELETED MESSAGES
> > - I personally understand IMAP and how it works regarding deleted messages,
> > but I don't expect all my users to. It would be nice if there were a 
> > maintenance selection to automatically purge all deleted messages from a 
> > folder when that folder is closed. Or to purge from all folders when you 
> > login (although some people have hundreds of folders). Then again, if 
> > filtering worked the way I expected, there would never be deleted messages
> > in a folder. That's probably best from the standpoint of non-technical 
> > users.
> 
> When a folder is closed is a pretty vague idea (programatically) from a
> webmail client. And purging all folders, as you note, isn't a good option. So 
> you're saying that if the filter deletion obeyed trash folder settings, this 
> would be a non-issue?

I plea the 5th.

> > ADDRESSBOOK
> > - I won't put any Turba issues here, because I realize that's a separate 
> > project. But, when sending an email, it would be very nice if the names on
> > the To: field were auto-expanded before the mail was sent. It's confusing
> > to a user who is used to just emailing "mom" or whatever to have to 
> > remember to click that button. It's especially bad if that user actually 
> > exists locally, which means their email gets sent to the wrong person.
> 
> This has been planned since when I first specced out the EXPAND_NAMES option;
> it just hasn't been implemented yet. It should be done.

+1.  Time, or lack thereof, is the main impediment.  Hopefully one of us will 
be able to add this.  Unless of course there's a patch. hint, hint. :-)

> > Thanks for all the great work. I actually do look forward to contributing
> > in the future. I hope y'all won't take this as a big list of complaints. I
> > LOVE many of the features and it's obvious a lot of time has been taken 
> > getting things right.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback! Hopefully I'll have some more time soon to tackle
> some of this, and hopefully I'll get some help at that. ;)

Chuck, if you find the time...tell us how and where you found it.  And also if 
there's any more left.

-- 
---max kalika
--max@lsit.ucsb.edu
-lsit systems administrator