Re: Does KMail require Akonadi?

On Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2020 20:55:10 CEST David Jarvie wrote:
> On Thursday 02 Jul 2020 08:02:14 [email protected] wrote:
> > Sorry for hijacking this thread, but this may be a good time / set of
> > people to ask"
> > 
> > I currently use kmail 1.13.7 on kde 4.8.4 (on Debian Wheezy) as my daily
> > (email) driver.  I have Nepomuk (or whatever it uses shut off.)
> > 
> > I have something like 500k old emails in folders and probably see (or not
> > see ;-) 300 to 1000 emails per day.
> > 
> > I'm a little afraid to move off kmail 1.13.7 for a variety of reasons, but
> > among them the problems I hear related to akonadi and, presumably, the
> > associated problems with handling fairly large quantities of emails.
> > 
> > So, my question is this -- if I'd upgrade to Buster and try to use the
> > kmail version there (5.9.3), how likely am I to have problems?
> 
> I also use kmail on Debian Wheezy. I use IMAP, but often move emails from
> IMAP folders into local folders. I've noticed that many of these emails in
> local folders only exist in Akonadi, and have not been stored as files on
> disk (which is a bug). So if you use a similar setup, don't upgrade before
> ensuring that all your locally stored emails have actually been saved to
> disk; otherwise they will be lost. I've found that copying instead of
> moving emails into local folders seems to fix this problem.

This nasty bug should be fixed in newer versions of KMail. I experienced this 
problem only when I moved more than one message at a time. My workaround back 
then was to move the messages one at a time (which is time consuming) or, as 
you've also found out, using copy (and then delete) instead of move.

Regards,
Ingo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQRxKgkQMhrHYtSAVAgadH5FMOC52AUCXv47mAAKCRAadH5FMOC5
2Df3AKC4uxEyCUpLtffLk01l6mONUkd6qQCdGiiT893cU71bDFP6iY1bvoZ6yJw=
=rtwW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----