Use IMAP namespace response for auto hiding of namespace folder at folder pane
Categories
(MailNews Core :: Networking: IMAP, enhancement)
Tracking
(blocking-thunderbird5.0 -)
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
blocking-thunderbird5.0 | --- | - |
People
(Reporter: mozilla, Unassigned)
References
(Blocks 4 open bugs, )
Details
(Keywords: imap-interop)
Attachments
(4 files)
Comment 3•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 5•24 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 8•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 10•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 11•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 12•24 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 13•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 14•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 15•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 16•24 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 17•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 18•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 19•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 20•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 21•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 22•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 23•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 24•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 25•23 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 26•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 27•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 28•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 29•23 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 30•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 31•23 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 32•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 33•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 34•23 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 35•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 36•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 37•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 38•23 years ago
|
||
Updated•23 years ago
|
Comment 39•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 40•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 41•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 42•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 43•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 44•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 45•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 46•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 47•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 48•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 49•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 50•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 51•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 52•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 53•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 54•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 55•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 56•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 57•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 58•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 59•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 60•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 61•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 62•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 63•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 64•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 65•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 66•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 67•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 68•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 69•23 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 70•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 71•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 72•23 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 73•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 74•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 75•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 76•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 77•22 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 78•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 79•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 80•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 81•22 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 82•22 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 83•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 84•22 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 85•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 86•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 87•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 88•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 89•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 90•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 91•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 92•22 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 93•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 94•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 95•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 96•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 97•22 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 98•22 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 99•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 100•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 101•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 102•22 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 103•22 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 104•22 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 105•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 106•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 107•22 years ago
|
||
Updated•22 years ago
|
Comment 108•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 109•22 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 110•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 111•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 112•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 113•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 114•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 115•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 116•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 117•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 118•21 years ago
|
||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Comment 119•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 120•17 years ago
|
||
Updated•17 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Updated•17 years ago
|
Comment 122•15 years ago
|
||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Comment 125•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 126•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 127•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 128•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 129•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 130•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 131•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 132•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 133•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 134•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 135•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 136•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 137•14 years ago
|
||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Comment 138•5 years ago
•
|
||
Courier and dovecot and probably others usually make Inbox the root folder with all other folders in the personal namespace (called "INBOX.") under Inbox. This can be changed at the server but that is typically unlikely unless the tb user controls the server. You can flatten the folder tree that tb shows so Inbox and the folders that were under inbox are now at the same level by setting advance server setting "IMAP server directory" to "INBOX" (no quotes). It seems to be case sensitive since just "inbox" doesn't have an effect. Make the change and collapse and expand the server's tree and/or restart tb. This changes the tree to flatten the folders to the Inbox level.
So this seems to be mostly fixed as originally described in comment 0 above and in several dups.
Maybe the fact that the server directory must be set to INBOX (uppercase) for this to work is still a bug, not sure. (IMAP treats mailbox INBOX as case insentivite.) However, since servers report the personal namespace as INBOX, maybe it makes sense for the server directory to also be set to the exact same string to show INBOX's sub-folders at INBOX's (root) level.
One other observation: Once the tree is flat and if you create a folder under Inbox, tb physically creates Inbox/Inbox/newFolder but it appears to be just under Inbox. Then if you remove INBOX from the "server directory" setting, collapse/expand and view the folders again, you see a "gray" Inbox/newFolder under the toplevel Inbox. Probably not a big problem but some might consider this a bug.
Comment 139•5 years ago
|
||
The objective here is to detect this automatically and get it right without custom preferences. As you said, most local IMAP servers are affected.
Comment 140•5 years ago
|
||
...get it right without custom preferences...
I assume that by "right" it means show the folders in a flat way with inbox on the same level as what the server puts below inbox.
Not sure everyone objects to showing the folders the same way the servers presents them.
Also, maybe the [Gmail] folder is another example. Is it "right" to hide it too and move its contents up by default?
Anyhow, my intention was not to fix this bug but I was just doing research for another bug I was working on regarding namespaces and server directories: Bug 1530157
The namespace code in tb is not well documented and was hoping to find some info on it in bugzilla. However, some of these old bug reports just say "I fixed and committed the change" but no patch is shown so that doesn't help a lot. Also, old reports mention UW server some. I've been working on tb imap for maybe 3 years now and haven't run across a problem where the user's server is UW. (It's still available in Fedora repo but not sure anyone uses it as a production server. I think it was mostly just a reference implementation written my Mr. Imap, Mark Crispin.)
Updated•3 years ago
|
Description
•