[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [KDE3.5] kmail, INBOX namespace and subscriptions

Andy Parkins wrote:

> On Tuesday 03 January 2006 15:35, VSJ wrote:
>> I'm using KDE 3.5 from alioth and it seems that KMail has a new folder
>> namespace handling.
>> When using Courier IMAP, all folders are subfolders of Inbox (which I
>> don't like at all) even when the INBOX namespace is set.
>> Now I'd like to change some folder subscriptions, but no matter what I
>> try, I always see Inbox in the left pane as only folder, and I'm unable
>> to change the subscription status of the subfolders of Inbox.
>> Is this a bug, or a feature?
> I've got exactly the same problem.  Previously (and still in every other
> client) the folder prefix for courier is "INBOX".  Setting that makes
> folder lists like
> Root
>  |- Inbox
>  |- Sent
>  `- Drafts
> After an upgrade to KDE 3.5; the "folder prefix" option is gone and the
> namespaces options have appeared.  However, even though the "Personal"
> namespace is detected by kmail correctly as "INBOX." the folders all
> appear like:
>  Root
>   `- Inbox
>       |- Sent
>       `- Drafts
> Despite what Derek says, I don't think this is a bug in Courier, it's
> working fine in mutt and thunderbird (and was fine in Kmail from 3.4)
> Strangely enough, I've also tried a cachedimap setup and that works as
> expected: the prefix does apply.  Smells like a bug in Kmail to me.

Well, as near as I can tell, Courier is just doing exactly what it _says_
it's doing.  I'm sure you can change the namespaces in the courier config
to make it work differently if that's what you want, but using the default
courier namespace, and the default dovecot namespace resulted in different
folder structures (I had to remove the INBOX prefix to get Dovecot to read
the Courier folders - which were then no longer subordinate to INBOX). 
This did NOT apply to "Sent" and "Drafts" - which suggests to me that there
may be a KMail issue there, in that they were created without using a

Reply to: