After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 617953 - Hide Junk messages in Search folders
Hide Junk messages in Search folders
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
2.32.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-mail-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2010-05-06 19:11 UTC by Brian J. Murrell
Modified: 2010-10-22 20:22 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
evo patch (523 bytes, patch)
2010-10-06 09:40 UTC, Milan Crha
committed Details | Review

Description Brian J. Murrell 2010-05-06 19:11:40 UTC
I have a vfolder which has several IMAP INBOX folders (as well as other folders) as it's backing.  I also have a filter on my INBOXes which automatically sets the status of identified spam as Junk.

Items that are filed by the filter successfully go into the Junk folder for the INBOX but they continue to display in the vfolder for that INBOX.  I have to mark them as Junk (using the toolbar) in the vfolder for them to disappear.  Even a folder Refresh doesn't make them go away.
Comment 1 Milan Crha 2010-10-01 10:52:32 UTC
Thanks for a bug report.

I can reproduce this in the just released 2.32.0 too. It's most likely caused by changes in bug #585353, where junk messages aren't hid from a virtual folder, thus for me marking a message as Junk in the search folder didn't make it disappear. It helped to edit te rule and add "all criteria is met" and "Status is not Junk" though.

Is it good idea to hide junk messages from the search folders?

I've a feeling that it can have an advantage, to not exclude them, but there is no visual indication that the message is junk (what about using italic font in message list for junked message?).
Comment 2 Brian J. Murrell 2010-10-05 13:32:33 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> 
> I can reproduce this in the just released 2.32.0 too. It's most likely caused
> by changes in bug #585353, where junk messages aren't hid from a virtual
> folder, thus for me marking a message as Junk in the search folder didn't make
> it disappear. It helped to edit te rule and add "all criteria is met" and
> "Status is not Junk" though.

I find it's more serious than this.  If I mark it junk in the search folder, it gets hidden but then if I quit evolution and restart it, they are all there in my search folder again.
 
> Is it good idea to hide junk messages from the search folders?

Absolutely.  I use search folders as my main interface to my various mail accounts.  I hardly ever go into the INBOX folders of the actual accounts my search folders are working on.  In fact if it weren't for search folders, I wouldn't put up with all of evolution's other bugs and would just use something else.

So given that use-case why would I want to continue to see spam?  I'd say that if somebody wants to see spam in their search folders, then they should need to add a "Status is Junk" to their search criteria.  In what world is the default of wanting to see spam normal?

> I've a feeling that it can have an advantage, to not exclude them,

What advantage?  Who wants to see spam?  Why would there be billions of dollars spent around the world filtering spam if everyone wanted to see spam?

> but there is
> no visual indication that the message is junk (what about using italic font in
> message list for junked message?).

A user can add visual indication if they wanted.  I color mine for example, based on the Junk flag.

But ultimately, the default should never be to show what is already known as spam.  It makes mailboxes useless.
Comment 3 Milan Crha 2010-10-06 09:40:41 UTC
Created attachment 171811 [details] [review]
evo patch

for evolution;

Hide junk messages from search folders. That's it.
Comment 4 Milan Crha 2010-10-06 09:42:53 UTC
Created commit 2d5b4f5 in evo master (2.91.1+)
Created commit 745fba3 in evo gnome-2-32 (2.32.1+)
Comment 5 Brian J. Murrell 2010-10-22 20:22:19 UTC
Upon initial loading of evolution after applying this patch to 2.30.3, it appears to be working.

Thanx!