>>Yes, as nothing has been done yet in regards to that. Before doing something, I am collecting data from members and need some more analysis. So far, it seems we are heading towards a NNTP approach where an unread item remains unread as long as a click is not done on it. The ability to mark all as read would also be applicable. Basically, Outlook has it as well. This, per user, saved on the server, would probably be the best approach. I don't know yet the impact on the process time for each user when reading those messages.
>
>All NNTP readers store information about read/unread messages localy so there's no extra load on server. I think it'll be overkill to store such info per user/message on the UT server. I would suggest that whatever mechanism you've now to ditinguish between read/unread messages for a user should be implemented per user and forum combination.

I can't imagine many people caring about reading any messages that they **purposely** have skipped, and to me "mark as read' has problems with it too.
I think the big concern (well, at least for me) is that I do not want messages assumed to have been "viewed" (not read, but just seen in the list) when I didn't even expand the forum to begin with.

For instance, pre-virtual I would let certain forums build up their message counts for days before I would finally visit that forum. I want to be able to do the same thing with the virtual mode.

cheers