Bug#411625: marked as done (Kontact getting mail takes too long, using 100% cpu)
Your message dated Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:51:17 +0100
with message-id <20070222125117.GA6022@pryan.sytes.net>
and subject line Bug#411625: Kontact getting mail takes too long, using 100% cpu
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: kontact
Version: 3.5.5.dfsg.1-6
Hi, I'm using kontact to manage 5 pop3 accounts, when I start it and there are
let us say 20 mails in each account, then getting the mails takes several
minutes even if the mails are not big, the cpu usage is 100% then and the
progressbars don't move smooth, i seams as the program blocks and waits and
then gets 1 email and then again blocks, when you then change the focus to
another window, and change then back to kontact it seems to be freezed, but
after a while it gets this 1 or 2 mails and shows up normal again, but then
blocks as described again.
I'm using Debian testing with 2.6.18 kernel on 2 computers and on each the
behavior of kontact is the same.
greatings
Jacek Zubel
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 3.5.5.dfsg.1-6
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:06:43AM +0000, Jacek Zubel wrote:
> > Are you using any anti-spam program to scan your email like spamassasin,
> > crm114, bogofilter... ?
> >
> > Ana
>
> You were right, when I turned spamassasin off, checking for new emails now
> works great, so this isn't really a bug.
>
There are some workardounds to avoid spamassassim eating your memory.
I'm sure google can give you more info about this :)
Closing the bug!
Ana
--- End Message ---
Reply to: