11689 - UW IMAP: Delete folder move to trash do not work with servers not supporting dual use folders

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(MailNews Core :: Backend, defect, P3)

Description

[jefft]

Subject: Re: Dialog box for NewFolder() & RenameFolder() plus DeleteFolder()
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:55:35 -0700
From: Mike Macgirvin <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Rebel Alliance
To: Jeff Tsai <[e-mail]>
References: 1

Hope you are considering that some IMAP servers do not support sub-folders
within a mailbox. Delete folders move (entire folder) to trash works on our
server, but on a UW server for instance one must move just the messages and
leave the container behind.

So for Netscape server you could have

+ Trash
        + trashed folder
                + (messages in trashed folder)
        + trashed folder 2
                + ditto

For UW you could only have

+ Trash
        + (messages from all trashed folder(s))



Tough problem to handle in an elegant way unless you make use of the 4.x
preference for "mailboxes may contain sub-folders" or whatever it was and
alter behaviour accordingly. An arguable alternative would be to have Trash
be a "sub-folder" (not a mailbox) and move individually deleted messages to
something like Trash/Trash, in which case the top level Trash could also
contain other folders on most all server types. I'm probably confusing you,
but hope you see the issue.

Comment 1

[jefft]

M10 ...

Comment 2

[David :Bienvenu]

moving to m11

Comment 3

[lchiang]

(target milestone is M11 or M12 - add to mail beta tracking bug)

Comment 4

[Karen Huang]

Change QA Contact to me.

Comment 5

[jefft]

M14 ....

Comment 6

[Phil Peterson]

What does 4.x do? Do we really move the messages to the Trash and leave the
source mailbox in place?

Comment 7

[jefft]

In 4.x, we warn user that the delete cannot be redone. We need to do the same 
thing too. It shouldn't be too bad to do. Beta1 should be okay.

Comment 8

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

On 4.x Unix, the delete fails with the error "Cannot create mailbox node -
folder exists".

I think, moving the messages to Trash and removeing the then-empty source folder
is better than just purging.

Comment 9

[Karen Huang]

I know this bug is logged for Netscape 6, I am just trying to investigate some 
problems for UW folder-only deletion problem from Communicator 4.x in order to 
test from Netscape 6:

Did this bug log originally for WinNT or Win98 platform?

It seemed that I got different results for UW IMAP on different platforms:

I have tried the following scenarios:
1)From Office/WiNT: I can delete the folder-only folder from client UI, but 
after I go to check the server side, that removed folder still displayed on the 
server.

2)From Home/Win98: It seemed that the folder-only folder removed at first, but 
then it will display back again (I just cannot delete the folder-only folder 
from client UI -- that's what this bug for...)...but after I check on the server 
side. Those folder-only folders had been removed from the server side....

It seemed that 1) & 2) performed opposite results.

Comment 10

[Karen Huang]

I know this bug is logged for Netscape 6, I am just trying to investigate some 
problems for UW folder-only deletion problem from Communicator 4.x in order to 
test from Netscape 6:

Did this bug log originally for WinNT or Win98 platform?

It seemed that I got different results for UW IMAP on different platforms:

I have tried the following scenarios:
1)From Office/WiNT: I can delete the folder-only folder from client UI, but 
after I go to check the server side, that removed folder still displayed on the 
server.

2)From Home/Win98: It seemed that the folder-only folder removed at first, but 
then it will display back again (I just cannot delete the folder-only folder 
from client UI -- that's what this bug for...)...but after I check on the server 
side. Those folder-only folders had been removed from the server side....

It seemed that 1) & 2) performed opposite results.

Comment 11

[Karen Huang]

Sorry for posting two times...It seemed bugzilla stalled when I committ this 
comments...

Comment 12

[scottputterman]

moving to future milestone.

Comment 13

[Karen Huang]

Are you sure the target milestone will be "future"?
Since whenever users tried to delete the message or folder from UW IMAP.
Because of UW IMAP not supporting dual use folders,
It will display an Alert: The current command did not succeed: The mailserver 
respond:RENAME failed: Can't create mailbox node /u/huang/Trash/:File Exists

We still have many users use UW IMAP servers (especially from Campus)
Delete messages and folders will be the basic IMAP interoperability 
functionality need to be working, are you sure this will still keeping "future" 
bug?

Comment 14

[jefft]

beta3 maybe a little better.

Comment 15

[jefft]

M18..

Comment 16

[Karen Huang]

Adding UW on the summary and interop for the keywords for specifying on UW IMAP 
server.

Comment 17

[lchiang]

- per mail triage

Comment 18

[Karen Huang]

Are you sure the target milestone will be "future"?
Can you see my comments on 2000-06-12 10:50 again?

Comment 19

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

I agree with Karen. Deleting folder is basic functionality.

Comment 20

[Karen Huang]

Clear nsbeta3- for PDT renominate again since:
1)Delete messages and folders will be the basic IMAP interoperability 
functionality. 
2)When users deleted the message or folder from UW IMAP, an Alert will display : 
The current command did not succeed: The mailserver respond:RENAME failed: Can't 
create mailbox node /u/huang/Trash/:File Exists 
Which is really confuse users.....

Comment 21

[lchiang]

- per mail triage

Comment 22

[selmer (gone)]

nsbeta3+

Comment 23

[David :Bienvenu]

I'd best put my money where my mouth is on this one.

Comment 24

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

Fixed within 1 hour? David, cool!

Comment 25

[David :Bienvenu]

fixed, but you, the user, need to specify that the server does not support dual
use folders, because UW doesn't return NOINFERIORS even when the folder can't
have sub-folders.

Comment 26

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

david, thanks for fixing. Just tried it. All msgs seem to get deleted
immediately, not moved to the trash (which is my delete model). You pop up a
dialog warning me about not undoable and 'deleting' all msgs, so this is not
*that* bad, but I wonder, if this is really necessary. To me, it was still not
clear, what you mean with "delete". Can't you just delete the msgs as if the uer
hitted delete, i.e. honor the delete model pref?

Anyway, I am finally able to delete folders via a GUI (4.x Linux didn't let me)!

> UW doesn't return NOINFERIORS even when the folder can't have sub-folders

really? wow, pretty bad.

Comment 27

[David :Bienvenu]

Well, the confirmation msg is the same as in 4.x when you delete a sub-folder of
the trash. The basic problem is because we can't have sub-folders of the trash,
as described earlier. Moving all the messages to the trash folder is a
possibility, I guess, but as a user, I'd hate that! When I delete a folder, I
want it to go away, and if the msgs were put in the trash, they would be lost
amongst all the other messages in the trash.

The other possibility would be to have a "TrashFolder" folder, and put deleted
folders in that directory.

I'm prejudiced, because I really just want folders to get deleted, and I'd
usually rather that they not get put under the trash folder. I'd really like
Shift Delete to work in the folder pane :-)

Comment 28

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

> The other possibility would be to have a "TrashFolder" folder, and put deleted
> folders in that directory.

That is the workaround I used in 4.x, and it is really optimal.

> Moving all the messages to the trash folder is a
> possibility, I guess, but as a user, I'd hate that!

IMO, we should do for the msgs inside the deleted folder the same as for
separately deleted msgs, for consistency.

Comment 29

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

> it is really optimal.

*not* optimal.

Comment 30

[Karen Huang]

Verified a warning message display for warning user that after delete 
fodler-only folders cannot be restore on WinNT 08-25-08-M18 commercial build.
But logged another bug 50572 for the follow-up issue. Marking as verified for 
this bug.