kmail has messed up the email accounts

[test]

On Mon, 2020-06-08 at 22:36 +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> On Monday, 8 June 2020 21:12:50 UTC test wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-06-08 at 16:05 +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > > ...
> > 
> > And evolution doesn't work, either?
> 
> it's no better for my purposes than thunderbird. i would go back to MH
> first.

Why (not)?

> i have been doing this for a while. for examples, see:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3APaul+Vixie
> 
> and
> 
> > 17.3.3. Wave 3: The Chaos Years
> > ... There were also attempts to build open source
> > versions, notably IDA sendmail and KJS.
> > 
> > IDA sendmail came from Linköping University. ...
> > 
> > King James Sendmail (KJS, produced by Paul Vixie) was an attempt to
> > unify
> > all the various versions of sendmail that had sprung up. Unfortunately,
> > it
> > never really got enough traction to have the desired effect. ...
> 
> (https://aosabook.org/en/sendmail.html)

You mean you used sendmail?  Isn't that an MTA rather than a MUA?

> it's possible that without having lived through the pre-Internet email
> era 
> that you won't be able to understand how fantastically magical KMail is.
> if i 
> have to learn Gentoo in order to run KMail without tolerating "systemd",
> i 
> will do so. if i have to learn how to build KDE PIM from source, i will
> do so. 
> even with akonadi and the horrid nonperformance and instability that 
> introduced, there's never been anything like KMail.

What do you think is so "fantastically magical" about kmail?  It's just a
MUA among others all of which have their advantages and disadvantages.
 Some of them took a long time before they worked, and kmail still doesn't
work.

The MUA I used before there was internet was better than kmail is today.
 It was just a MUA among others all of which had their advantages and
disadvantages, and it worked.  They even had fantastic features.  Actually,
the one I used stored the messages and stuff in a database.  Sometimes the
database needed to be repaired, similar to akonadi, but it was far less
troublesome and didn't happen constantly (It seems it doesn't take a day
before akonadi fsck will find errors it won't fix.).

Perhaps the lesson to learn from that is that databases are generally bad
for storing messages like emails.  It doesn't really matter if the problem
is with the databases or the MUAs.  When something hasn't worked for the
last 30 years, it may be overdue to try something else instead.

> > > ...
> > 
> > I don't have, nor want, a PIM identity.  I just want to use some email
> > accounts, and I need a MUA that works, preferably one I like, and it
> > doesn't and shouldn't have anything to do with any identity ...
> 
> i suggest that whenever you see the word "identity" in any KMail document
> or 
> forum, you substitute the term "email address", which is equally accurate
> but 
> may lack the baggage that's triggering you.

What makes you think I'm carrying some kind of baggage?  I didn't come up
with that kind of bad wording.

> i, like you, want to use some email accounts. for work, i have one
> personal 
> address and at least one role address, but only one incoming server and
> only 
> one outgoing server and only one set of folders. for home, it's the same.
> one 
> set of servers, one set of folders, but sometimes i send as 
> vixie at tisf.net and 
> sometimes i send as paul at redbarn.org, and if i get it wrong, some
> distant 
> listserv will reject my e-mail because "i" am "not" a member of the list.

Configuring your MTA as an open relay is usually considered a bad idea.

> if you only use one email address per email account, then you will
> probably 
> find the "identity" construct in KMail, whereby you could potentially
> have 
> more than one, an added layer of irritation. no apology will be offered
> you, 
> because for those of us who have to send as, and use pgp keys for, more
> than 
> one address per "account", the ability to create multiple "identities" is
> a 
> gift from the gods, and we can't even consider an MUA lacking that
> feature.
> 

Like I said, I don't mind the functionality, and I say that it would be
better implemented as settings specific to the recipients of a message
instead.  You are giving an example as to how that makes sense above
yourself.