On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Shai Berger <s...@platonix.com> wrote: >> > So, the bits marking messages as "read" or "unread" are not data? What, >> > pray tell, are they? >> >> Easily recreatable bit flags. >> > > So data isn't lost if it is "easily recreatable"? Really?
No. > By that argument, there really shouldn't be any data loss bugs, because all > data should be easily restorable from backup. Also no. > Those "easily recreatable" bits represent a significant part of my mail > workflow. Almost any data can be recreated by repeating the work that created > it. Your claims essentially come down to "workflows based on 'read status' are > invalid or unimportant". Well, they're damned important to me. Then you're either choosing the wrong mail client or not doing enough to help upstream scratch that itch. > I suspect that this discussion is going nowhere, but I still would like you to > answer one more question: Can you describe the difference between "serious" > and > "non-serious" data loss? The difference is "actual" vs. "perceived" data loss. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
