Re: expiry =? expunge

[Matt Armstrong <matt_armstrong@bigfoot.com>]

Kim-Minh Kaplan <kmkaplan@vocatex.fr> writes:

> Simon Josefsson writes:
> 
> > What it boils down to is to map the Gnus expiry process into the IMAP
> > expiry process. I hadn't realized this was possible, hence the client
> > specific `gnus-expire' flag on the server. Think of expire marks as a
> > delayed delete mark (which is exactly the semantics of \Deleted in
> > IMAP).
> 
> No, they do not mean the same thing: \Delete means this article will
> be nuked on the next EXPUNGE (I don't think you can say EXPUNGE
> articles that are more than N days old).  Gnus' expire mark means
> this article will be nuked when certain other conditions are
> fulfilled (usually it is means the article is old enough).

Yes.  Delete, even in IMAP terms, means "I want this message to go
away soon."  IMAP has no equivalent to Gnus' expire mark, which means
"I want this message to go away after expiry-wait days."

BTW, Pine asks you if you want to expunge every time you leave the
group.  I think Netscape Communicator's default is to expunge by
default.  I don't think the practice of leaving deleted articles in an
IMAP mailbox for a long time is common.


> This is a very nice feature that lets you have loads of articles
> marked as expirable but they will not be nuked at the same time.
> The lack of this feature is one of the reasons Netscape sucks when
> it comes to mail handling.

I'll point out that the proposed change won't matter for those using
total-expire.  But for those who don't, they could find other mailers
deleting ALL their expired articles with no regard for gnus'
expiry-wait period.


> > I think this is a good and necessery step since it makes nnimap a
> > better IMAP citizen. What do you think?
> 
> I think the current way of handling article removal is good.

Agreed.