(In reply to comment #8)
> Notes:
> Given comment #6, I would suggest that when a message is
> copied from one folder to another that the header is either:
> immediately reread OR it is copied with the email. I don't know
> enough about IMAP or whatever to know if that's reasonable or not.
Marking a header as "read" when copied is absolutely the wrong thing to do. And isn't the header already copied as-is with the message? I think the problem you described has more to do with deleting (moving to trash) multiple messages that haven't actually been read -- marking/moving as deleting is not the same thing as reading. Perhaps you want deleted messages marked "read" at the same time? Either way, copying isn't the problem; for instance, my deleted messages get marked as "deleted" and not moved to a "Trash" folder.
> I also wonder what the user expects. If they see a folder with
> unread messages and they don't *visit* the folder and want to mark
> it read, then shouldn't it be marked read?
Yes, that's the fundamental problem from the user perspective, as indicated in the initial report.
> Perhaps there is a better way to show the user that there are
> messages they could not have seen vs. message they haven't read.
{snip}
> Perhaps color could denote this:
> If all messages are seen and read: black, normal font-weight
> If unseen messages exist: purple, bold
> If all messages are seen, but some are unread: blue, bold
Color shouldn't be the only indicator used for status, for accessibility reasons. IIRC, Thunderbird already does this (at least with the INBOX) -- I see a red asterisk appear on the folder icon when new messages have arrived, it only turns bold w/ an unread count when there are unread messages -- regardless if they're new or not. I see this most often when junk mail arrives; I have the junk mail filter mark the junk as read so I see the asterisk (new mail) but no unread messages.
(In reply to comment #8)
> Notes:
> Given comment #6, I would suggest that when a message is
> copied from one folder to another that the header is either:
> immediately reread OR it is copied with the email. I don't know
> enough about IMAP or whatever to know if that's reasonable or not.
Marking a header as "read" when copied is absolutely the wrong thing to do. And isn't the header already copied as-is with the message? I think the problem you described has more to do with deleting (moving to trash) multiple messages that haven't actually been read -- marking/moving as deleting is not the same thing as reading. Perhaps you want deleted messages marked "read" at the same time? Either way, copying isn't the problem; for instance, my deleted messages get marked as "deleted" and not moved to a "Trash" folder.
> I also wonder what the user expects. If they see a folder with
> unread messages and they don't *visit* the folder and want to mark
> it read, then shouldn't it be marked read?
Yes, that's the fundamental problem from the user perspective, as indicated in the initial report.
> Perhaps there is a better way to show the user that there are
> messages they could not have seen vs. message they haven't read.
{snip}
> Perhaps color could denote this:
> If all messages are seen and read: black, normal font-weight
> If unseen messages exist: purple, bold
> If all messages are seen, but some are unread: blue, bold
Color shouldn't be the only indicator used for status, for accessibility reasons. IIRC, Thunderbird already does this (at least with the INBOX) -- I see a red asterisk appear on the folder icon when new messages have arrived, it only turns bold w/ an unread count when there are unread messages -- regardless if they're new or not. I see this most often when junk mail arrives; I have the junk mail filter mark the junk as read so I see the asterisk (new mail) but no unread messages.