DavidT Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 In an archived forum post, JT suggested the following: "you can turn off moving deleted messages to the trash" So, I've been experimenting with that function of the webmail system, which is found in the Options under "Deleting and Moving Messages" but I think I've identified some problems with it. For example, if you uncheck the option: When deleting messages, move them to your Trash folder instead of marking them as deleted? it is still possible to put items in the trash, even unintentionally. For example, if you click on Folders, select the Held Mail and then use the function to "empty" the folder, the system prompts you with: "Are you sure you wish to PERMANENTLY delete these messages?" If you OK that, they actually go into your Trash, as opposed to being permanently deleted, contrary to the message. OK, you think, I'll just empty my Trash with the "Empty Trash" icon....but....when you've disabled the moving of deleted messsages to the trash, you no longer are shown an "Empty Trash" icon, even if you have a checkmark in your Deleting and Moving Messages options by: Display the 'Empty Trash' link in the menubar? Hmmmm....that's a bug, but perhaps a bug inherent in the Horde/IMP system used by SpamCop....or maybe a bug due to some customization of that software? I don't think that JT knows about it, because in the same response, he also wrote: "You can try to remember to empty the trash yourself each time you're done with webmail. There's an icon for that." But wait...there's more.... JT also suggested that... "You can also tell webmail to delete messages from the trash more than, say, 3 days old. That will keep it more manageable." Yes, that's a good idea, but if you've selected the option not to move deleted messages to the trash, that function no longer works...I've been testing it. I've got my options set as follows: When deleting messages, move them to your Trash folder instead of marking them as deleted? (turned off/unchecked) Display the 'Empty Trash' link in the menubar? (checked) Perform maintenance operations on login? (checked) Purge old message in the Trash folder? (checked) Purge messages in Trash folder older than this amount of days. (1 day) So, when I log in, anything that's been in the Trash for over 1 day should be purged, and I should see a notice to that effect, but it's not happening, so it's possible that if you use the problematic option mentioned above that your Trash might never be purged (I'd have to run my test a lot longer to be sure of this). I have a second account, on which I'm letting my deleted items go to the Trash (the default), and the auto-purging is working upon login, just as designed, so I think I've identified multiple problems with the option to turn off moving deleted messages to the trash, and it urgently needs to be fixed. David T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 So, when I log in, anything that's been in the Trash for over 1 day should be purged, and I should see a notice to that effect, but it's not happening, so it's possible that if you use the problematic option mentioned above that your Trash might never be purged (I'd have to run my test a lot longer to be sure of this). I use this option and it does work. It only purges the first time you log in each day (and puts a log entry at the top of the screen when it has done it as well), so setting it to 1 day will show 2 days of information in the Trash, anything from Today and anything from yesterday. Before that is cleared out. My setting is set for 2 days...I only have messages dated 7-27-7/29 in there right now (confirmed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted July 29, 2004 Author Share Posted July 29, 2004 I use this option and it does work.14232[/snapback] Wait...please clarify which option you mean by "this option." My tests show that the option to "Purge old message in the Trash folder?" does indeed work, unless I'm also not using the option "When deleting messages, move them to your Trash folder instead of marking them as deleted?" Are you sure that you've got the latter option "unchecked"? David T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 I missed the part where you had that option turned off. If you have that option turned off ("When deleting messages, move them to your Trash folder instead of marking them as deleted?"), then of course it will not purge the messages because, as far as the system is concerned, there is no Trash folder. It is like: A: turn trash off. B: do this when trash is on. The same with the empty trash link. You have turned off the trash can, so what if the link is missing. I also don't see what the big deal is, if you are not using the trash folder (you have turned it off), if messages get in there inadvertantly? There is no quota on the number or size of the messages that can be stored in webmail. Keeping it cleaned out will help performance, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted July 29, 2004 Author Share Posted July 29, 2004 I missed the part where you had that option turned off. Good...then my previous post is still fully valid If you have that option turned off ("When deleting messages, move them to your Trash folder instead of marking them as deleted?"), then of course it will not purge the messages because, as far as the system is concerned, there is no Trash folder. Hmmm....I understand your logic, but the two things shouldn't be mutually exclusive, IMO. The same with the empty trash link. You have turned off the trash can, so what if the link is missing. Not really....and there's a hole in your logic that I can now see....here it is: If unchecking the option mentioned above really does elimate the Trash function altogether, then why, when using the "Empty Folder(s)" function in the Folders menu, do all the "emtied" items wind up in my no-longer-really-a-Trash box? That would be a contradiction of your explanation of the logic, and bolsters my theory that it's really a bug. I also don't see what the big deal is, if you are not using the trash folder (you have turned it off), if messages get in there inadvertantly? There is no quota on the number or size of the messages that can be stored in webmail. If the settings worked in conjunction with one another, then stuff that got dumped in the Trash somehow would then get purged automatically a day or two later when I logged back into the webmail. Also, if things are as I suspect, and a person opts to turn "When deleting messages, move them to your Trash folder instead of marking them as deleted?" off, and then uses the Empty Folder option from time to time, the Trash could build up to a point where it would affect performance (and waste space on the server), and this would never be resolved until a person intentionally emptied their Trash....but wait....there's no Empty Trash for that person.... DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted July 29, 2004 Author Share Posted July 29, 2004 the Trash could build up to a point where it would affect performance (and waste space on the server), and this would never be resolved until a person intentionally emptied their Trash....but wait....there's no Empty Trash for that person.... 14240[/snapback] BTW, I realize that one can also use the Empty Folder(s) option on Trash, even simultaneously with Held Mail, but they have to know to do that, and my basic points still stand. David T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted July 30, 2004 Author Share Posted July 30, 2004 Here's an additional bit of information on this problem: I have just verified that Quick Reporting of Held Mail items by way of the URL: http://mailsc.spamcop.net/reportheld?action=heldlog also puts them in the Trash folder, even if you have de-selected the option that moves deleted items to the Trash. Because of that, if a user has this option configured and also uses that method of Quick Reporting, their Trash would grow infinitely, never being automatically emptied. This further validates my argument that just because you're not using that option doesn't mean that the Trash function is entirely gone. This is buggy and inconsistent behavior and needst to be fixed. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 And have you emailed JT on this. I have asked this several times and you have not responded to that question. As I have mentioned before, this is a user helping user support location. It appears JT is rarely making his presense here, so emailing him is probably the only way to get these things to his attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted July 30, 2004 Author Share Posted July 30, 2004 And have you emailed JT on this. I have asked this several times and you have not responded to that question. Huh? I just read back through this thread and I don't see you asking me that...unless you have edited that out of one of your responses (I see that at least one of them was edited). And to answer now....yes. I sent a message to support (at) spamcop.net yesterday and I hope to hear from him soon. I'll post here when I do. As I have mentioned before, this is a user helping user support location. It appears JT is rarely making his presense here, so emailing him is probably the only way to get these things to his attention. 14291[/snapback] Yes, you're right. JT has made a total of 257 posts (using his "jefft" identity...who knows if he might also have a second identity?) in the forums since January, since they started. While many of those have to do with the configuration and function of the forums themselves, many of those are also direct responses to actual topics...but not recently. Here's my tally, done by clicking on his identity and then on "Find member's posts." He has posted only one such reply this month, one in June, none at all in May, seven in April, 32 in March, 127 in February, and I won't tally the ones in January, because that's when the forums got started and there's too many there that are forum-function-related. If you plot a trend graph on those numbers, the falloff is pretty dramatic. There are also hundreds of replies from people in the "SpamCop Staff" group (Ellen, Julian, Richard W, and the generic "SpamCopAdmin"). So, this venue hasn't always been exclusively a "user helping user support location." It does seem to have changed significantly in that direction over the last few months. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 Huh? I just read back through this thread and I don't see you asking me that...unless you have edited that out of one of your responses (I see that at least one of them was edited). It probably was not in this thread, but you have had a lot of threads recently And my editing of replies is only for further clarifications, additions, and/or spelling mistakes...usually the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted July 30, 2004 Author Share Posted July 30, 2004 It probably was not in this thread, but you have had a lot of threads recently True. I've been privately documenting bugs and discrepancies for a while and am now making time to make them public...but my office is a mess, so I'd better shut down the computer and start doing some serious sorting, filing, etc. And my editing of replies is only for further clarifications, additions, and/or spelling mistakes...usually the latter. 14305[/snapback] Me too. :-) dt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 SpamcopAdmin = Don, primarily Admin stuff - rarely posts anywhere (but when he does ....<g>) Julian - owner/programmer - very rarely makes his presence known ... in these Forums, the Mail-Host thing he created and the recent web-page changes at www.spamcop.net are his postings ... RW - answered most of the background in his last post http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...indpost&p=14106 Ellen - Self-admitted that these Forums are not at the top of her priority list, and there are tracking issues involved she says ... mailing her at Deputies seems to be the solution for most of this JT - maybe partially my fault, maybe I'll include others ... that "we" seem to be doing so well at handling things, perhaps a rationale for not having to spend much time in here ..??? Not speaking for him, just offering a plausible thought ... On the other hand, things like my stating that I'd e-mail him about something, then finding out that the user had also e-mailed him, PM'd him, and e-mailed him again might feed into why I don't get responses right off the bat either <g> editing of replies is only for further clarifications, additions, and/or spelling mistakes...usually the latter. I just took the time to clean off (several) keyboard(s) ... got the Sharpie out and relabelled all those blank keys (no, I don't touch type, though can move fingers quite fast ... just tired of guessing at which of those top 5 blank keys was the "R" or the "T", usually after looking up and seeing that I was a key too far to the right in the last paragraph, so everything was mis-spelled <g>) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted July 30, 2004 Author Share Posted July 30, 2004 JT - maybe partially my fault, maybe I'll include others ... that "we" seem to be doing so well at handling things, perhaps a rationale for not having to spend much time in here ..??? For the most part, yes, probably true, but there are simply issues and questions that only he can deal with, and so if this is to function as the primary support venue, I think he might need to show up more often. On the other hand, things like my stating that I'd e-mail him about something, then finding out that the user had also e-mailed him, PM'd him, and e-mailed him again might feed into why I don't get responses right off the bat either <g>14322[/snapback] Good point, which is why I've not done that to you. When you've written that you emailed him, I haven't made any attempts at contacting him myself, and I've never sent him a PM. I currently have one email out to him that I'm waiting to hear back on, and it was on the "how long do emails stay in my held box" topic...not on the topic at hand. dt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 And I only email JT my direct issues, trying to reccommend to the interested party to do the same when it becomes clear that is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.