Re: Ghost emails

On Thursday, 19 May 2022 15:41:05 BST Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 19. Mai 2022 16:12:23 CEST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Thursday, 19 May 2022 14:54:50 BST [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 08:58:46 AM gene heskett wrote:
> > > > I do, I read nearly all mail from local folders on my own machine, put
> > > > in
> > > > those local folders by kmails filters, although some do live in the
> > > > inbox. Probably 50 unclassifiable messages there, no problem with
> > > > them.
> > > 
> > > Coming in from left field, but if you read most (all??) emails from
> > > local
> > > folders, have you ever (or ever considered) getting them with pop3
> > > instead
> > > of imap?
> > 
> > My ISP doesn't offer IMAP so I have to use POP3. The problem there is that
> > KMail is notoriously bad at handling POP mail - to the extent that it was
> > actually worthwhile for me to set up a little mail server (on another
> > machine, but it could have been on the same one). That used fetchmail to
> > collect mail from the ISP and postfix to transfer it to dovecot, which
> > runs
> > as a local IMAP server to my workstation.
> > 
> > In short, do everything you can think of to avoid POP3 in KMail.
> > 
> > Oh, and don't hold your breath waiting for better POP handling in KMail,
> > because the last I heard, none of its developers had a POP account to test
> > it with. Yes, really!
> 
> I don't think that's what we have said. I think what we have said is that
> all of us use IMAP for all of our email and most of us filter on the
> server. Therefore, we do not experience problems with the daily use of POP
> or local filtering. And testing with a test POP account every once in a
> while just isn't that helpful.
> 
> > When I ran software projects, a comprehensive test environment was
> > essential.
> 
> Yes, that and a dedicated QA team consisting of qualified test engineers.
> That's what we had at the company I used to work for.

Actually, in ISO terms, that's quality control, not assurance, but I won't 
quibble. (ISO9001 has clear definitions of those and all other relevant terms, 
in case you're interested. I haven't been since I retired >20 years ago.)

> > But then, we weren't all volunteers working in our spare time.
> 
> Exactly. And you cannot blame those volunteers for using the vastly more
> advanced IMAP. POP really should have died last century. The "keep mail on
> server" feature for POP has caused us so many headaches in the past because
> of misbehaving servers. It was gruesome.
> 
> > No offence meant to anyone.
> 
> No offence taken.

:)

-- 
Regards,
Peter.