My changes in bug 1646473 aimed at honoring the `read`, `new` and `marked` flags of the `newMsgFlags` parameter passed into nsMsgLocalMailFolder::CopyFileMessage(). Messages copied into the outbox set the `read` flag set here: https://searchfox.org/comm-central/rev/b20a8a71f829d3e24257d6072129254ee6682ca3/mailnews/compose/src/nsMsgCopy.cpp#232 Before bug 1646473 landed, the `read` flag was ignored. So, why is that `read` flag set there in the first place?
Bug 1852428 Comment 11 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
My changes in bug 1646473 aimed at honoring the `read`, `new` and `marked` flags of the `newMsgFlags` parameter passed into nsMsgLocalMailFolder::CopyFileMessage(). Messages copied into the outbox set the `read` flag here: https://searchfox.org/comm-central/rev/b20a8a71f829d3e24257d6072129254ee6682ca3/mailnews/compose/src/nsMsgCopy.cpp#232 Before bug 1646473 landed, the `read` flag was ignored. So, why is that `read` flag set there in the first place?
My changes in bug 1646473 aimed at honoring the `read`, `new` and `marked` flags of the `newMsgFlags` parameter passed into nsMsgLocalMailFolder::CopyFileMessage(). Messages copied into the outbox set the `read` flag here: https://searchfox.org/comm-central/rev/b20a8a71f829d3e24257d6072129254ee6682ca3/mailnews/compose/src/nsMsgCopy.cpp#232 Before bug 1646473 landed, that `read` flag was ignored. So, why is that `read` flag set there in the first place?