Bug 38175

Summary: Multiple copies of message downloaded
Product: [Unmaintained] kmail Reporter: Steven P. Auerbach <steven.p.auerbach>
Component: generalAssignee: kdepim bugs <kdepim-bugs>
Status: CLOSED FIXED    
Severity: normal    
Priority: NOR    
Version: 1.3.2   
Target Milestone: ---   
Platform: RedHat Enterprise Linux   
OS: Linux   
Latest Commit: Version Fixed In:
Sentry Crash Report:

Description Steven P. Auerbach 2002-02-15 21:16:31 UTC 
(*** This bug was imported into bugs.kde.org ***)

Package:           kmail
Version:           1.3.2 (using KDE 2.2.2 -2)
Severity:          normal
Installed from:    Red Hat Linux 7.2
Compiler:          gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-98)
OS:                Linux (i686) release 2.4.7-10
OS/Compiler notes: 

Multiple copies of the same message
are downloaded in some circumstances. I
believe this occurs when the "to" field has
multiple recipients e.g
To: recipient_1 recipient_2 recipient_3

(Submitted via bugs.kde.org)
(Called from KBugReport dialog)
Comment 1 Michael H 2002-02-16 10:42:14 UTC 
On Freitag 15. Februar 2002 22:50 JW wrote:
> At 09:16 PM 2/15/2002 +0000 you wrote:
> >Multiple copies of the same message
> >are downloaded in some circumstances. I
> >believe this occurs when the "to" field has
> >multiple recipients e.g
> >To: recipient_1 recipient_2 recipient_3

If there are multiple copies on the server KMail obviously also downloads=
=20
them all.

Or are you talking about leaving all mail on the server and you get them al=
l=20
again every time?

> This also happens with non-RFC compliant pop3ds that don't support the UI=
DL
> command. Eudora manages to work around this somehow it would be nice if
> some day Kmail could manage this too. There are certianly enough pop3ds o=
ut
> there that don't support UIDL - for example gnu-pop3d.

This workaround uses a command that has been removed from the POP3 standard=
 in=20
1996 because it's unreliable and causes mail eating when the connection=20
breaks while downloading. Therefore I'm strongly against also implementing=
=20
this.

Regards
Michael H=E4ckel