User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040614 Firefox/0.9 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040614 Firefox/0.9 I use IMAP, so my deleted messages persist until I close firebird. I would like to be able to not see them again once I delete them, without moving them to a "trash" folder. So, it would be great to apply a View filter (i.e. "not junk", just "not deleted"), but "deleted" is not something that's available from the "status" menu (or anything else for filtering purposes). Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Use an IMAP account 2. Delete a piece of mail 3. It stays around, but the icon changes Actual Results: Mail stays. Expected Results: Would like to be able to apply a filter a la "no junk" to make dleeted mail invisible.

On a similar note, I would like to be able to sort on, view, or search only the deleted messages in order to review them before finally executing a purge/expunge operation. This is similar to reviewing the Trash before emptying it in the POP model. Currently, there is no way to do this in Thunderbird. In a mailbox full of thousands of messages with various messages flagged as deleted throughout the mailbox, it is impossible to determine what will be deleted before a purge. This is a very simple and often used feature in most other IMAP clients, including PINE, Mulberry, etc., and would be much appreciated in Thunderbird as well.

XRef Bug 243075

Please excuse the crosspost, but if anyone is interested in discussing the validity of this bug, please read and respond to the topic "IMAP Users Feeling Neglected" in the MozillaZine Thunderbird Features forum: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=329683

This sounds like the opposit of Bug 98097, but probably depends on that bug.

Not the opposite. It's actually the same bug, but for different products. Bug 98097 is for SeaMonkey, while this one is for Thunderbird. Both seem to be related to MailNews Core Bug 190974 which is marked "fixed in TB3", though the fix has already sprouted Bug 446417 in turn.

Yes this was fixed - the possibly remaining issue is bub 446417.