Does KMail require Akonadi? (was: Re: Frustrating to use KMail with Akonadi 5.14.1 (20.04))

[rhkramer at gmail.com]

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?

Nothing new below this line.

On Thursday, July 02, 2020 04:04:34 AM Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Martin Steigerwald - 05.06.20, 18:52:37 CEST:
> > This is a plea to any KDE developer who feels capable and willing of
> > doing so, to look at whether it would be possible to make Akonadi
> > great… not again, but for the first time… or whether it would be wise
> > to finally start over with a new approach.
> > 
> > It easily takes a minute or longer  to synchronize a mail folder with
> > just a few thousand mails. It is much, much, much slower than with
> > KMail with Akonadi 19.08. During that time Akonadi does not respond
> > to KMail requesting the payload of a mail I click on.
> 
> […]
> 
> > [Akonadi] [Bug 422336] kmail: the access and reading of the received
> > messages is often very slow
> > 
> > https://bugs.kde.org/422336
> 
> I still do not know what caused it and how it got fixed. But with Qt
> 5.14.2 (instead of the former Qt 5.12 in Debian) and probably other
> updates in Debian this regression is gone.
> 
> Synchronizing mail folders is much faster again.
> 
> The other issues remain, but are not as severe now that the operation
> that is done needlessly is much quicker again.
> 
> Thanks to everyone who may have been involved in the fix. Maybe… it was
> that Akonadi 20.04 did not like Qt 5.12 or maybe it was whatever…
> 
> Best,