From kmail-devel  Thu May 11 07:24:55 2000
From: Stefan Taferner <taferner () salzburg ! co ! at>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 07:24:55 +0000
To: kmail-devel
Subject: Re: kmail status w/addressbook
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kmail-devel&m=95803008715376

On Thu, 11 May 2000, Don Sanders wrote:
> Off the top of my head this is what most people want in an email client
> address book.
[...]
>
> Last time I looked KAB fell short in several areas. I'm not against adding
> KAB support to KMail, but I think it should only be one possible option.
>
> Personally I would prefer to spend my time finishing off an address book
> that meets more of the above requirements than porting KMail to use KAB.

Agreed.

> I don't have a problem with someone porting KMail to use KAB, however they
> shouldn't lose functionality that the current address book provides (eg
> Ctrl-T autocompletion) and they shouldn't make it more difficult to add
> support for new address books. 

Yes.

>Also they should keep support for the
> current address book GUI as (last I looked) it is easier to enter a name
> and email address than in KAB, and the backend shouldn't be hardwired to
> use libkab as it doesn't support groups (correct me if I'm wrong).

Hopefully in the not so far future we will have some sort of centralized
address storage that is capable of most / all features.

But the problem is, as you stated before, that an email program usually only
needs email addresses and groups of them. Nothing more. Everything else
is extra.

This is different from the traditional addressbook approach where people
are also stored with their postal address, etc.

The best solution IMO would be some sort of generic solution, e.g.
have different address books in one big tree -- from the users point of view.
LDAP comes into mind...

Kind regards,
Stefan