[Imap-uw] Outlook deadlock

[Mark Crispin]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Andy Lyttle wrote:
> The trouble here is that users don't want a "real" IMAP client.  They want 
> something that behaves (on the front end) the way they expect - something 
> that behaves the way they're used to, or behaves intuitively.  They don't 
> care what happens on the back end, as long as it doesn't fail.

I doubt very much that the vast majority of users think "I want all my 
email, including all the spam with graphics attachments, downloaded to my 
hard drive before I even get the chance to look at it.  I especially love 
this when I am paying packet charges, because my high Internet bill means 
that I am A Very Important Person."

I also doubt that many of them think "gee, when I delete a whole bunch of 
messages at once I want to wait several minutes while they are all copied 
to the Trash mailbox.  I just *love* watching that animation of stuff 
being moved."

> One of the things this means is, when they delete a message, they want it to 
> immediately disappear, but silently be moved to a Trash folder that they can 
> sift through later if they change their mind.

This confuses a GUI artifact with internal details.

> They expect this, because this 
> is what happens when you delete a file on Mac OS or Windows (95 and later), 
> and even from the GUI in many Linux distributions.

Actually, MacOS and Windows do not work at all the way that people think 
they do.  There is no single "Trash" in MacOS or Windows.  Both systems 
have multiple trashes, and not all trashes are reversible; in some cases 
when you "move to trash" the object is gone forever.

On both Windows (and modern MacOS) you can get to a command prompt and 
delete large numbers of files without going through an excruciatingly long 
move to trash, albeit at the cost of not having an undelete.

> IMAP isn't designed to 
> work this way at all, so in order to satisfy the users, clients like 
> Thunderbird have to work around IMAP instead of embracing it.

Rather, it's in order to satisfy those who were brought up on the MacOS 
way of doing things, and haven't yet grasped that external interfaces and 
internal details are not necessarily the same.

> In my experience, Thunderbird and Apple's Mail do a good job at this.

I haven't looked at Thunderbird lately, but Apple's Mail.app has HUGE 
problems.  I've had several bug reports filed with Apple on Mail.app for a 
few months now.  I'll file more if and when Apple ever decides to address 
the issues that I already filed.

> If you have a problem with specific things that Thunderbird does when it 
> talks to an IMAP server, I would recommend talking to the Mozilla people.

Why should I bother?  They have the opportunity to participate in the IMAP 
protocol community, just as anyone else does.  They choose not to do so.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.