281155 - REQUEST: Feedback for IMAP caching

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 345832

(Thunderbird :: General, enhancement)

Description

[Atahualpa Jones]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0
Build Identifier: Mozilla Thunderbird version 1.0 (20041206)

As of TB 1.0 it is not possible to see if a mail was cached or not. It happened
way too often for me that I find TB downloading the same e-mail from the IMAP
server over and over. And especially with large e-mails this behavior is very
annoying and I simply cannot see if TB has cached the mail or not.

I wish for another column, such as SPAM or read mails that could be checked to
cache or uncache a mail. Default being to cache all mails when the user views it.
Another approach could be to have different e-mail icons for cached and not
cached e-mails (as in OE).

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:

Comment 1

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

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/

Comment 2

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

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.

Comment 3

[Atahualpa Jones]

(In reply to comment #2)
> 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.
> 

I reopened it, because I experienced it again. I got a mail with a size of 4MB. TB downloaded it (and took a long time, because of the 4MB of course). Then I wanted to save the attachment and TB downloaded it _again_. And next time I started TB, it needs to download the same email another time. It has downloaded the mail with the attachment 3 [details] [diff] [review] times and still not cached it?

Comment 4

[Atahualpa Jones]

Please ignore the link to an attachment in the last post

Comment 5

[rsx11m]

(In reply to comment #3)
> TB downloaded it (and took a long time, because of the 4MB of course). Then I
> wanted to save the attachment and TB downloaded it _again_.

What you describe is bug 235942, which resolved as duplicate of bug 345832.
This is different from your initial description asking for a visual indicator whether or not a message is cached (the question being how to distinguish caching of the message itself versus caching of any attachments).

If the issue of multiple attachment downloads is your primary concern, and
unless there is any other motivation for such a "message cached" indicator,
this should be resolved with bug 345832 then.

> And next time I started TB, it needs to download the same email another time.

See bug 439731 regarding caching/offline use of messages between sessions.

Comment 6

[Atahualpa Jones]

Wow pretty long time. I have moved to Outlook in the mean time, my request thus becomes void.

Comment 7

[rsx11m]

Yes, we have bug days right now, cleaning up older unconfirmed bugs...
I'm duping this against bug 345832 per comment #5 as the main issue.