343777 - Messages Filtered to Trash confuses the new mail notification

Status: NEW

(MailNews Core :: Backend, defect)

Description

[Scott MacGregor]

If you have a filter that moves messages to the Trash folder, the new mail notification code is getting notified of the new message that is now in your Trash folder.

This leaves the mail notification in a 'broken' state:

1) The account has a new mail indicator on it in the folder pane, but none of the imap folders for that account have the indicator. 

2) The new mail alert system tray icon is shown in the system tray. (It shouldn't)

3) The new mail alert does not show itself.

1 and 2 are problems, 3 seems like the right behavior.

Comment 1

[Scott MacGregor]

Attachment: thinking out loud...

Thinking out loud here. One interesting way to solve this problem would be to make GetNumNewMessages ignore the Junk and Trash folders when adding up the number of new messages. 

Currently, when the filter action finishes, nsImapMoveCoalescer::OnStopRunningUrl ends up calling the PerformBiff code which ends up counting the newly filtered message in GetNumNewMessages on the account.

Comment 2

[David :Bienvenu]

that works, except I don't think we should think there are new messages in either of those folders.  One thing to be careful of is people who specify other folders as the JUNK folder, so that the folder has flags other than the JUNK folder (e.g., TRASH). But I can't imagine anyone would specify the INBOX as the JUNK folder, and if they do the TRASH, it shouldn't matter.

Comment 3

[James Rome]

I see this also in SeaMonkey 1.1b. You could read the filter file to see where the message is directed and ignore those files too. This is important because my folders often get screwed up so I have to create new ones. I have a sent, sent1, sent 2, for example. Please fix SeaMonkey too.

Comment 4

[Gary Kwong [:gkw] [:nth10sd] (NOT official MoCo now)]

Bienvenu, is this patch still relevant?

Comment 5

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

(In reply to comment #4)
> Bienvenu, is this patch still relevant?

rkent, was it you that was looking into this are recently?

Comment 6

[Kent James (:rkent)]

"Recently" is at least a year ago. I've sort of quit looking at new status bugs, because until the refactoring that I proposed is done, any touching of new status is as likely to cause a new problem, as to solve an existing one. I don't currently have any plans to do the refactoring myself, and as far as I can tell new status is not a priority to the Thunderbird drivers.

Comment 7

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Bienvenu, is this patch still relevant?
> 
> rkent, was it you that was looking into this are recently?
(In reply to comment #6)
> "Recently" is at least a year ago. I've sort of quit looking at new status
> bugs, because until the refactoring that I proposed is done, any touching of
> new status is as likely to cause a new problem, 

then it was someone else. if someone knows who and can them on the shoulder, or can comment on whether this patch warrants further attention.

Comment 8

[Gary Kwong [:gkw] [:nth10sd] (NOT official MoCo now)]

Comment on attachment 228376 [details] [diff] [review]
thinking out loud...

Patch has obsoleted.

$ patch -p0 --dry-run < ~/Desktop/p343777.diff 
patching file nsMsgDBFolder.cpp
Hunk #1 FAILED at 4181.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file nsMsgDBFolder.cpp.rej

Comment 9

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

The draft patch would also fix bug 272125?