Re: IMAP

On Friday 08 January 2010, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
> On Thursday 07 January 2010 22:27:09 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > On Thursday 07 January 2010, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
> > > On Thursday 03 December 2009 09:46:24 Kārlis Repsons wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > not knowing much about IMAP, I'm still going to set up Dovecot
> > > > that way -- what I wanted to know is about search: how can
> > > > dovecot's indexing feature be taken advantage of, when a search
> > > > is performed with kmail? "Automatically"? Well, just to make
> > > > sure it actually can work out...
> > >
> > > And now I'm back with some other, more concrete questions, but
> > > first I'll tell briefly what has been done.
> > >
> > > I decided to sort mails per year/month and then set up an
> > > automatic mechanism to sort within a month folder as desired.
> > > First I had to migrate a chunk of old mails to those perhaps over
> > > 1k directories. Note, that I set dovecot to
> > >
> > > :LAYOUT=fs, so I can use that mail tree with mutt in an emergency
> > > : situation
> > >
> > > (which caused that all folders had to be created by hand on
> > > server, failure with kmail). But I've not finished the migration
> > > yet, because kmail is deadly slow. It takes some hours for it to
> > > process those folders every time kmail is started and it "burns"
> > > a cpu core.
> > >
> > > Is that nonstandard serverside mails tree format to blame? Or
> > > with maildir++ it'd be about just as slow?
> >
> > Probably yes.
> 
> I presume its an answer in favour to "just as slow".

Correct. I should have been a bit more verbose.


> > To KMail the folder tree wouldn't look different. The
> > difference is only known by dovecot. As such it cannot affect
> > KMail.
> 
> ?! Well, that is then very strange! How could thunderbird be able to
>  work with my imap server (and yes, fast in accessing the mails) and
>  create new folders onto it (I tested again, it created a folder
>  "test" into "parrent" just fine, looking from server with $ ls)?
>  Thunderbird, on the other hand, had problems with symbols like
>  ā,ē... It created someting, which resembled base64 on serverside,

It's probably utf7. At least, that's the encoding used in the IMAP 
protocol.


>  while the utf8 filesystem folders with Latvian letters on server
>  looked like chinese on thunderbird!

I have no idea what encoding needs to be used for the filesystem folders 
dovecot uses as storage. Maybe you cannot use utf8-encoded foldernames.


>  On top of that, its impossible
>  to create and access a new folder with KMail on my dovecot: it
>  doesn't happen, that a new folder would be created with name
>  "newfolder" into "parrentfolder", but along with the latter
>  "parrentfolder.newfolder" is created!

Hmm. "parentfolder.newfolder" sounds like maildir++. All KMail (and also 
Thunderbird) does is tell the IMAP server to create a folder "newfolder" 
below the folder "parentfolder". It's up to dovecot to actually create 
the folder in its storage as needed. I cannot imagine why a folder 
created by Thunderbird results in parentfolder/newfolder while a folder 
created by KMail results in parentfolder.newfolder unless you switched 
dovecot's storage format.


>  And is not accessible w/o
>  KMail restart (or two restarts maybe) just like any other folder
>  created from shell on server takes a KMail restart for it to see a
>  change, "Refresh Folder List" doesn't help!

Weird.


> I totally agree, that directories format should be an internal matter
>  for dovecot, not MUA.
> 
> > > I read, some other IMAP module/whatever is going to be ready for
> > > KMail, but is there sufficient reason to think, it will handle
> > > such large imap mailbox trees, which are in addition filesystem
> > > trees, not maildir++?
> >
> > Akonadi will hopefully cope better with this. Does the situation
> > improve if you "hide" all but about 100 folders from dovecot (and
> > thus also from KMail)?
> 
> Yes, it becomes better! KMail desperately tries to enumerate
>  absolutely all of the serverside folders while in my case is not
>  necessary. And whats more, that 'enumeration' is slow (remember CPU
>  burn on client, while almost idle on my rather slow server).

Hmm. I have no idea what KMail is doing. :-(


> Akonadi? But that is a local solution not involving the dovecot
>  server, no?

Currently, KMail accesses your dovecot server directly. With Akonadi 
KMail will access your mail through Akonadi (which will access your 
dovecot server and cache part of the information locally).


Regards,
Ingo

_______________________________________________
KDE PIM users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAktHtQ8ACgkQGnR+RTDgudik4wCgl+VuVIby0QdwL9QRxIhvP1bs
IgUAn2iXX6gPIw/mSagYhXL6zOdaHRRB
=NMT4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----