Bug 33820 - kmail very slow/crashes on large message
Summary: kmail very slow/crashes on large message
Status: RESOLVED UNMAINTAINED
Alias: None
Product: kmail2
Classification: Applications
Component: general (show other bugs)
Version: 4.14.4
Platform: Mandrake RPMs Linux
: NOR normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: kdepim bugs
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2001-10-17 19:03 UTC by slamno7
Modified: 2018-01-31 16:53 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description slamno7 2001-10-17 18:58:45 UTC
(*** This bug was imported into bugs.kde.org ***)

Package:           kmail
Version:           KDE 2.2.1 
Severity:          normal
Installed from:    Mandrake RPMs
Compiler:          Not Specified
OS:                Linux
OS/Compiler notes: Not Specified

Kmail freezes for up to a minute on loading large message.  In my case it's the linux-kernel-daily-mailing-list- digest.  It becomes unresponsive for up to a minute or so and it really becomes impossible to work with.  I was able to freeze X as well once by right-clicking to bring up a KDE context-menu on that message.  I'm not sure why that happened (I can't reproduce it) but the main issue is how long it takes to load a very large message.  I understand that it might take a little extra time but it takes WAY too long to be able to read messages like that or to use kmail at all when there is a chance that you'll hit that message by mistake or when iterating through messages.

(Submitted via bugs.kde.org)
Comment 1 Ingo Kl 2001-10-17 20:58:18 UTC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 17 October 2001 20:58 slamno7@mail.com wrote:
> Kmail freezes for up to a minute on loading large message.  In my
> case it's the linux-kernel-daily-mailing-list- digest.  It becomes
> unresponsive for up to a minute or so and it really becomes
> impossible to work with.  I was able to freeze X as well once by
> right-clicking to bring up a KDE context-menu on that message.  I'm
> not sure why that happened (I can't reproduce it) but the main issue
> is how long it takes to load a very large message.  I understand that
> it might take a little extra time but it takes WAY too long to be
> able to read messages like that or to use kmail at all when there is
> a chance that you'll hit that message by mistake or when iterating
> through messages.

Do you use PGP or GnuPG? AFAIK some of the message on the linux-kernel=20
mailing list signed. Therefore the digests are run through PGP/GnuPG=20
and this does unfortunately take some time. Furthermore KMail currently=20
doesn't work well with huge messages (it consumes way to much memory).=20
We are working on improvements for both problems.

Regards
Ingo
=20
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7zfDqGnR+RTDgudgRAodqAJ0QFGvXISZYSVSiHc0kLqS08+swiwCfXWcQ
Pkeyr4PuZVE+LXKRIcddNBY=3D
=3DAOvV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment 2 Ferdinand 2005-08-11 16:03:55 UTC
I have the same problem with an "extreem" large message. (eg. 80 Mb text)
If it is not put in an attachment, kmail will crash after a few seconds.

Maybe a "Message to large, click here to save it" will be nicer.
Comment 3 Thomas Domenig 2015-05-05 10:33:20 UTC
I may confirm this bug with KDE 5.9.0 and Kontact 4.14.6.

While responding to a very large text message (eg. more than 4000 lines), Kontact freezes. If you wait and then try to type in such a long loaded message, Kontact freezes as well.

Approach: long texts shall be attached instead of trying to be loaded way too long and thus making Kontact unusable for quite some time.
Comment 4 Denis Kurz 2017-06-23 20:05:41 UTC
This bug has never been confirmed for a KDE PIM version that is based on KDE Frameworks (5.x). Those versions differ significantly from the old 4.x series. Therefore, I plan to close it in around two or three months. In the meantime, it is set to WAITINGFORINFO to give reporters the oportunity to check if it is still valid. As soon as someone confirms it for a recent version (at least 5.1, ideally even more recent), I'll gladly reopen it.

Please understand that we lack the manpower to triage bugs reported for versions almost two years beyond their end of life.
Comment 5 Denis Kurz 2018-01-31 16:53:33 UTC
Just as announced in my last comment, I close this bug. If you encounter it again in a recent version (at least 5.1 aka 15.12, preferably more recent), please open a new one unless it already exists. Thank you for all your input.