On Monday 06 June 2005 21:34, Andreas Gungl wrote:
> Am Montag, 6. Juni 2005 21:11 schrieb Heiko Hund:
> > Do you really want to go there? I think it will be hard to develop and
> > even harder to understand for the user. I understood the idea that
> > filters are transparent to the user, that she doesn't need to care where
> > the filters are stored, but somehow get a itch from the idea. After all
> > sieve filters should not be confused with local filters. Mixing them
> > together in one dialog will IMHO cause a lot of confusion. What are your
> > feelings about a separate dialog for the sieve stuff (just like we did it
> > with pop-filters back then)?
>
> I share this POV. Mixing the capabilities of sieve filters and local
> filters in one configuration frontend will make the user helpless. You have
> vacation and bounce on the sieve side, execution of scripts or piping
> through filters on the other (local) side. You could mix both worlds in the
> GUI and you'll never know what will end on the server.

You guys are thinking too technically :)

From a user perspective you just want to create a filter, period. Whether it's 
a POP3 filter (wth is that a separate menu entry?), an IMAP filter, procmail, 
or whatever doesn't matter the least.

The only distinction that you *may* want to make is whether a filter runs on 
the server or not, and Thomas Zander was IMO right at the PIM meeting that 
even that is too much asked in general.

So far however my opinion, and Thomas'. Now there's also two opinions against, 
so could one of you elaborate why a user would feel helpless instead of 
helped?

-- 
Martijn
_______________________________________________
KMail developers mailing list
KMail-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail-devel