fpbear said:
In the first sentence it sounds like you're essentially saying that
manually marking read works ok, which is no surprise. I don't
understand the second sentence.
It's when the rules is executed when this bug manifests itself, not
sometime after. When a rule specifically executes to mark the item
read, the new message flag does not go away. But there is no more
new message anymore because the user made it so via the rule.
Microsoft saw this logic when items are manually marked read, and
clears the tray icon. Why is this logic not clear when using a
rule?
Ok so then I should ask this question instead,
Does a mail filtering rule to mark read deserve to be disconnected
from normal UI (tray status) behavior because it is automatic vs.
someone clicking to mark read?
Personally I'm with you that a rule that marks as read should update
the tray icon. Microsoft decided otherwise. As a user in a peer
community in a Usenet newsgroup, I have no way to change what
Microsoft did and discussing it here will not alter code.
Marking as read is not the same as actually reading it. The same
distinction is lost on users when they permanently delete a message
and then wonder why they have to compact their message store to
actually get rid of the already permanently deleted message.
*Marking* a message to have status "deleted" does not physically
remove it from the message store. It merely tells Outlook not to
*display* that item anymore. Compaction is the action of physically
purging the delete-marked item from the message store.
For example, you might use a rule to move certain mails into a folder
and also mark them as read. Okay, but you are expected to read those
mails in that special folder whether they are *marked* as read. That
is, you are still supposed to READ them regardless of the read/unread
status. There is more than one use for the read/unread status of an
item, just like there can more than one use for a flag. Marking a
message as read really only has the effect of unbolding that item in
the list. Say you are responsible for code compiles during the day.
You are supposed to update a table on a web site used by developers
and QA folk to let them know when the compile is done so developers
can proceed to the next compile and QA folk can begin testing the new
code. You don't want those items bolded in your Inbox because they
are less priority. You are already using the low/high priority flag
for some other purpose so you rely on the bolding to indicate other
priority. You are still responsible for *reading* those "marked
unread" e-mails to update the web site but the bolded messages are
more important for you to look at first.
I doubt we would be discussing this problem if the clause had been
written "make item bold" or "make item unbold". Well, it can have
other effects if you are using Exchange and why it is not important
about the state of the tray icon. I believe, for example, that you
manually clicking on a message which changes its status (and updates
the tray icon) can also be used to trigger events back in the Exchange
or RM servers. So YOU reading the message is very important whereas
whether or not you happen to use a rule to change its bolding is
unimportant to others that need to know status of you reading that
item.