4 ms·

It's still funny that the text of a message can exist without being a message itself. That must make sense in the specific context of Outlook, but it shows that

It's still funny that the text of a message can exist without being a message itself. That must make sense in the specific context of Outlook, but it shows that the conceptual design of the software does not match how we want to think about the domain abstractly.

sherburt3 2y ago
I don’t think the model is that far off. In real life I can read a letter and retain the contents in my mind, then burn the letter.
- Wolfenstein98k 2y ago
  But this is claiming that the letter does not exist, while allowing you to read the contents of the letter. If it can show you the content, the container must exist!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - vince3455 2y ago
    In a post office, open a letter, burn the envelope. The content now exists, but the message does not.
    - chii 2y ago
      but that implies the message is the envelope, which is not typically what a message means.
- another-dave 2y ago
  This letter cannot be read because it has been burnt to ash. You can only throw away the ashes. Make sure you read the letter and retain the contents in your mind, before you throw away the ashes, if you want to use them later.
derefr 2y ago
I would assume Outlook means that its locally-cached copy of the message exists, but the original server-side (probably IMAP) message no longer exists. And that without that message, there's no server-side resource to update — just a resource representation of a snapshot of that server-side resource, still temporarily persisted in a client-side read-through cache.
- denton-scratch 2y ago
  > the original server-side (probably IMAP) message no longer exists. Doesn't Outlook rely on the Exchange mailstore? It's a long time since I was near to Outlook and Exchange, but I thought the Exchange mailstore was some kind of X400 abomination, and that the IMAP capability was a bolt-on.
- nuancebydefault 2y ago
  Does Outlook can even have opinions?

sherburt3 2y ago

I don’t think the model is that far off. In real life I can read a letter and retain the contents in my mind, then burn the letter.

Wolfenstein98k 2y ago
But this is claiming that the letter does not exist, while allowing you to read the contents of the letter. If it can show you the content, the container must exist!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- vince3455 2y ago
  In a post office, open a letter, burn the envelope. The content now exists, but the message does not.
  - chii 2y ago
    but that implies the message is the envelope, which is not typically what a message means.
another-dave 2y ago
This letter cannot be read because it has been burnt to ash. You can only throw away the ashes. Make sure you read the letter and retain the contents in your mind, before you throw away the ashes, if you want to use them later.

derefr 2y ago

I would assume Outlook means that its locally-cached copy of the message exists, but the original server-side (probably IMAP) message no longer exists. And that without that message, there's no server-side resource to update — just a resource representation of a snapshot of that server-side resource, still temporarily persisted in a client-side read-through cache.

denton-scratch 2y ago
> the original server-side (probably IMAP) message no longer exists. Doesn't Outlook rely on the Exchange mailstore? It's a long time since I was near to Outlook and Exchange, but I thought the Exchange mailstore was some kind of X400 abomination, and that the IMAP capability was a bolt-on.
nuancebydefault 2y ago
Does Outlook can even have opinions?