User-Agent: Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040123 REQUEST FOR ENHANCEMENT: In my opinion, the spam/junk filtering should not be adding/moving messages to the designated Junk folder *while* the user is in that folder reviewing what is in it. The problem is that if you have 400 messages in the Junk folder (that came in overnight) it takes long enough to review that there are no "good" messages accidentally in it (and there sometimes are!) that more messages have since come in. Some of those newly added/moved messages might be good, but you have no way to be sure without looking at them all again (unless you Mark or Label the contents of the folder before you start your examination -- but most people don't think of that). I do recognize that the problem with this RFE is how do you deal with the situation where somebody leaves focus on that folder for an extended period of time when they are not really meaning to be in that folder. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Be in June folder Actual Results: More messages are added and I can't easily determine which were just added. Expected Results: Either more messages should not be added while I am in the folder or there should be an easy way to determine which were just added. Maybe messages that are added while focus is on the folder could be Marked or Labeled in some way. Or maybe they can be put at the bottom of the list -- but that is problematic as it is not how everything else behaves and you don't really know how the person has the list sorted.
Weird request. By the same logic, one shouldn't get new mail while focus is on the Inbox either. How do you "examine" the messages? I mean.. if you haven't examined a message yet - what does it matter whether it arrived an hour ago or just a minute ago? Personally, I delete those i don't want and move those i want. As I read them, they are marked as read. That "labeling" is good enough.
Before going to the junk folder you could set Mozilla to work Offline, that way it's sure that no new messages will arrive at all at any folder.
R.K.Aa: I don't think you fully grasped my point. I don't "read" the messages. I just look at the subjects. But in the time it takes to look at 400 subject lines, another 5 messages have come into the folder. Thus they are not distinguished from the 400 that were there already. One of those 5 might be real mail that should not have been marked as spam -- maybe an order from a customer or something like that. Alfonso Martinez: Thanks. I will try this and see how practical it is. It is probably about as much work as Marking or Labeling everything in the folder before I start to look at the subjects. I have never had a need to be "offline" and thus did not occur to me. Jay
Why not just let set the client to check in a longer interval of time (perhaps 15+ minutes). That way you have more time. If you have the problem your saying, it shouldn't matter how often it checks, since it will take a while for you to read it. That's why that's an option.
Robert: You are correct that your approach would work; however then *all* checking would be delayed by the same amount. I do a lot of work on the phone in which the other person is sending me emails and we are discussing them, going back and forth; sort of a chat/email combo. I have the checking set to one minute in order to get such items quickly. Thus for me the approach you describe would not be very helpful. Jay
I don't know of any other e-mail program that puts incoming mail on hold while you happen to be in a particular folder. I counted 3 or 4 quite reasonable workarounds suggested that require no code changes. The user is attempting to use e-mail (which is a delayed delivery messaging system) as an instant messaging system (which it is not designed to be).
This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01". This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code. While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug (given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more reproduction information if you have it. If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved. Thank you for your help in this matter. The latest beta releases can be obtained from: Firefox: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/ Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html Seamonkey: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/
This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → EXPIRED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.