[imp] Unseen and Unread

[Jan Schneider]

Zitat von Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at bigworm.colorado.edu>:

> Quoting Jan Schneider <jan at horde.org>:
>
> | Zitat von Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at bigworm.colorado.edu>:
> |
> | > Quoting Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck at horde.org>:
> | >
> | > | Quoting Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at bigworm.colorado.edu>:
> | > |
> | > | > However, I noticed when doing my changes that we don't actually
> | check
> | > | to see
> | > | > if a message is "new" or not (i.e. we never do a Recent and
> Unseen
> | > | check).
> | > | > So this definitely does need to be fixed (I'm surprised this has
> | > never
> | > | been
> | > | > caught before).
> | > |
> | > | I distinctly remember dealing with this something like 4 years ago.
> | It
> | > | must have gotten lost somewhere along the way.
> | >
> | > It turns out that "Recent" checking is essentially worthless since
> the
> | > Recent flag disappears the first time you access the mailbox anyway,
> so
> | > subsequent views of the mailbox will show the message as non-recent,
> | even
> | > though it has never been read.
> |
> | But isn't that exactly the meaning of "new message"?
>
> Yes.  Which is why "new" message checking in IMP is worthless.  Since all
> sorts of stuff may access the IMAP mailbox before we access it (e.g.
> authentication attempts, ingo imap filtering, other IMAP connections the
> user may have open), I have *never* seen the Recent flag set by the time
> we
> get to checking the flag in mailbox.php/message.php.  Thus, the only
> thing
> we can check is whether the Unseen flag is set or not.
>
> This is exactly why I prefer "Unseen" to label these messages rather than
> "new".  To me, as a non-technogeek user, "New" means newly delivered to
> the
> local computer and never seen by me before.  To _me_ "New" != "Unseen" -
> rather, New is a subset of Unseen.
>
> However, as mentioned above, it is impossible to check for "new" messages
> reliably, if at all, with IMP.  Thus, the only thing we have to go on is
> the Unseen flag.  Therefore, in my opinion, since you can not be 100%
> certain a message is "new" (using either my definition or the official
> IMAP
> technogeek defintion), you can not *lie* to the enduser and report it as
> new.  You _must_ report it as "Unseen" since that is the only thing we
> can
> be 100% sure in saying.
>
> I realize "Unseen" is a lie in and of itself because a user can just as
> easily read a message and then mark it "Unseen" while, in the "real
> world",
> it is obvious that the message has been seen.  However, this reflagged
> message can in no way be considered "New" since it does not fit the
> definitions listed above (mine or IMAP) - it is simply a message marked
> as
> unseen.  I remark messages as Unseen all the time, not because I want to
> label them as new but because I want the messages to stand out on the
> mailbox screen. So, once again, "unseen" != "new".  So reporting all
> "Unseen" messages as "New" would, once again, be lying to the user, at
> least IMHO.
>
> Labeling a message as "New" does work easily and 100% reliably for POP3
> mail
> servers because, once the message is downloaded off the server, it can be
> marked as read.  But not for IMAP.
>
> To sum up, I realize that "new" is equated with most people as "unseen",
> and
> thus people would rather have "new mail" displayed than "unseen mail".
> But
> the simple truth is that I would rather use a slightly less 'popular'
> term
> than flat-out lie to the user and call a message "new" even though it
> isn't.
>
> Comments welcome.  I sure like to hear myself talk it seems like (no
> wonder
> I'm a lawyer).

:-)

I agree with you, for me is "new" == \Recent and \Unseen == "unread" a valid
map of technically correct terms and understandable words.

But isn't checking for the \Recent flag what we currently do to determine
"new" messages as notified to the user by a popup?

Jan.

--
http://www.horde.org - The Horde Project
http://www.ammma.de - discover your knowledge
http://www.tip4all.de - Deine private Tippgemeinschaft