L=F8rdag den 11. februar 2012 17:42:58 Andras Mantia skrev:
> Anders Lund wrote:
> > L=F8rdag den 11. februar 2012 15:52:32 Andras Mantia skrev:
> >> KMail(1&2) uses this:
> >> =

> >> Folder1
> >> =

> >>   cur
> >>   new
> >>   tmp
> >> =

> >> .Folder1.directory  - contains the subfolders of Folder1
> >> =

> >>   cur
> >>   new
> >>   tmp
> >>   Folder2
> >>   =

> >>      cur
> >>      new
> >>      tmp
> >>   =

> >>   .Folder2.directory - subfolder for Folder2
> >>   =

> >>      Folder3
> >> =

> >> Dovecot would need this as:
> >> Folder1
> >> =

> >>   cur
> >>   new
> >>   tmp
> >>   .Folder2
> >>   =

> >>      cur
> >>      new
> >>      tmp
> >>   =

> >>   .Folder2.Folder3
> >>   =

> >>      cur
> >>      new
> >>      tmp
> >> =

> >> As  you can see they are completely different. In dovecot style sub-
> >> subdirectories are not layed out as such on the file system.
> >> =

> >> Sincerely I'd just keep the current layout as it is and not bother with
> >> "real" subdirectories.
> >> This will make bug 289183 a wontfix and will require user intervention=
 to
> >> import completely the folder structure.
> > =

> > In kmail 1 there was both visible and hidden subdirectories, some of wh=
ich
> > had localized names. In kmail 2 ~/Mail (or wereever you store your mail)
> > is a joke - it is ALWAYS empty apart from empty cur, new and tmp
> > subdirectories.
> =

> Sorry, but you mix a lot of things here without having knowledge about.

:p

> The fact that by default KMail creates ~/.local/share/local-mail and
> ~/local/share/.local-mail/directory

I explicitly directed my brand new akonadi maildir resource at ~/Mail, whic=
h =

was not existing at that point, so probably the akonadi resource created it.

> is one thing and actually I'm looking in
> to make it more user friendly, like local-mail containing the top-level
> folders, just like in the old days.

Great!

> Also KMail2 *can* deal with structures like that already, it is just that
> the default created structure is not like that.
 =

So the default is to use a broken setup, where the mail is not stored where=
 it =

is configured to. That is bad.

> And if you saw in KMail1 both hidden and visible subdirectories, it is
> because KMail1 used a mix of maildir and mbox storage. That's called
> mixedmaildir nowadays.

My kmail storage dates back to kde 1.12 I think.

My experience with the kdepim 4.6 mixedmaildir resource was so traumatic th=
at =

it got me banned from #kde forever, which is why I moved my old structure a=
way =

form this system in the hope I never gets confronted with that again. (Not =

that I can know that that particular resouce was responsible for any of the =

brokenness, but it was not possible to use kmail at all at that point as a =

pop3 user desiring to be able to browse historic mail)

> > Personally, I don't care much what the layout looks like, as long as ma=
il
> > is stored where the user thinks, in my case indside ~/Mail, as long as =
it
> > is just functional inside kmail. This was true until kmail 2, and it
> > should be again.
> =

> It is partially still true, see above.

Not in my experience. There is no visible setting anywhere to have kmail st=
ore =

mail where it is asked to, and frankly that would really feel stupid. I set =

the path to /home/anders/Mail, but mail is not stored inside that path. May=
be =

it is technically possible, but that does not help at all if the capability=
 is =

not used.

So it is really good that you look at it! I really appreciate that, it will =

benefit all kmail/pop3 users :)

Thank you,
Anders

_______________________________________________
KDE PIM mailing list kde-pim@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
KDE PIM home page at http://pim.kde.org/