Re: Seperate 'sets' of mail boxes

Hi Anne,

My sincere apologies, BUT, I have not received any replies from Ingo or 
yourself.

> You are asking for a feature that has never been said to exist

That is not correct. One factor in doing this, is to move the mail boxes to 
another location. I have tried that, and cannot get it to work. The second 
factor in being able to do this, is to have a KMail config file, for each 
mail box 'set'.  That _should_ be easy by using the 'config' parm, but I also 
cannot get that to work either.

Whilst the feature may not exist, if the config parm worked and the 'folder' 
option in the kmailrc worked, then the 'feature' would work.

Of course, I mean that it doesn't work for me, and I may be doing something 
stupid, that is very possible.

> , and you are  
> unwilling to consider any workaround. 

I'm willing for workarounds, but did not recieve any replies from Ingo or 
yourself. Were these replies sent to the list ?  If not, they may not have 
got through the server I use, it uses ASSP  ??

> Your third point needs substantiating -  
> which features are meant to work, but do not?

1.  The 'config' parm
2.  Moving folders (complete sets) to another location.
 
> You didn't even bother to answer any of Ingo's questions.  With this 
attitude 
> you are unlikely to succeed.

I've already answered this one.

Thanks,

Peter

On 18 Nov 2008 at 12:46, Anne Wilson wrote:

> On Tuesday 18 November 2008 12:34:31 Peter777 wrote:
> > I was hoping that KMail was a suitable replacement for Pegasus Mail,
> > especially given the fact that it can import Pegasus mail boxes, etc. But
> > two factors are unfortunately apparent:
> >
> > 1.  Support for KMail is very poor (I have had one response in total).
> > 2.  Documentation is old and not comprehensive
> > 3.  Features that are meant to work, do not
> 
> Let's have one thing clear - you are talking to people who volunteer their 
> time.  In this thread Ingo has replied 3 times and I have made input once.
> 
> You are asking for a feature that has never been said to exist, and you are 
> unwilling to consider any workaround.  Your third point needs 
substantiating - 
> which features are meant to work, but do not?
> 
> You didn't even bother to answer any of Ingo's questions.  With this 
attitude 
> you are unlikely to succeed.
> 
> Anne
>