kmail has messed up the email accounts

[Anders Lund]

Please stop. Find a mail client that suits your needs better, og live with 
spending the few minutes to set up kmail to your likings, it is really not 
that hard!

onsdag den 3. juni 2020 10.47.17 CEST skrev test:
> On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 00:36 +0100, David Jarvie wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 Jun 2020 21:24:03 test wrote:
> > > I don't dislike the functionality.  What I strongly dislike is this
> > > concept
> > > of having multiple identities.
> > > 
> > > It usually takes a long time for people before they have figured out
> > > who
> > > they are, and it is difficult enough.  In a way, it is disrespectful
> > > and
> > > offensive that a MUA should force a user to assume multiple identities
> > > just
> > > to be able to use several email accounts (for different purposes).
> > 
> > You seem to be interpreting email identity as equivalent to personal
> > identity.
> 
> Of course, it is what it usually refers to.
> 
> > The word identity in this context simply refers to a way of
> > distinguishing
> > something from other things.
> 
> Can you give a reference, like in a dictionary, that the word is generally
> being used like that?  Do you think arbitrary users would ever conceive of
> the way you describe it?
> 
> I found two articles on wikipedia that might apply.  One of them says "An
> identity in object-oriented programming, object-oriented design and object-
> oriented analysis describes the property of objects that distinguishes them
> from other objects.  This is closely related to the philosophical concept
> of identity."[1]
> 
> The other article says, which the first one refers to: "In philosophy,
> identity [...] is the relation each thing bears only to itself."[2]
> 
> Those are entirely different concepts.   Both of these articles do not
> agree with your description of "identity".
> 
> And what do you think how many users of kmail are sufficiently familiar
> with OOP that their first thought is that "identity" describes a particular
> property of objects?  (I won't mention that "identity" doesn't describe
> that property.  Or where is the description in "identity"?)
> 
> How many users of kmail do you think have studied philosophy such their
> first thought is that they are supposed to configure the relation of
> something to itself?
> 
> 
> [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(object-oriented_programming)
> [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy)
> 
> > KMail identities are merely *email* identities, or in other words email
> > address/name pairs which some users find useful to use in different
> > contexts
> 
> I do not associate names with email addresses.  If you do, which is the
> "identity": the address or the name?  Whom are you sending a message to:
> the person with the email address or the person with the name?
> 
> Technically, I can send messages only to email addresses, not to names.
> And which is more unique: the names or the addresses?  Am I to assume that
> someone with the same name has multiple email addresses, or am I dealing
> with multiple persons using the same name who have different email
> addresses?
> 
> >  (as
> > 
> > some of the other contributors to this thread have mentioned). An email
> > identity doesn't necessarily bear any relation to a person's social or
> > psychological identity. For example, your email identity "test
> > <test at ...>"
> > doesn't, as far as I can tell, reflect your personal identity - you
> > prefer to
> > keep your name and other aspects of your identity private.
> 
> That's how it makes it so confusing.  The term "identity" very strongly
> suggests that it means a persons identity.  Ask arbitrary people what
> "identity" means, and if someone doesn't say it refers to your personal
> identity --- especially when it comes to email addresses, since those are
> personal information --- you probably have found an exception.
> 
> So my point is that this is extremely bad wording.  Why don't you call it
> "account settings", "settings reference", "preferences handle" or
> "properties anchor" or something like that instead?