Version: 1.6.2 (using KDE 3.3.0, (3.1)) Compiler: gcc version 3.3.4 (Debian 1:3.3.4-7) OS: Linux (i686) release 2.6.8-1-686-smp This, I assume, was by design. I say this is not the best idea. Example: I want several users to be able to access the addressbook or favorites/bookmarks. I would place these users in a group and give r/w permission to this group. Should play--in fact, konqueror, run as this group-user, will work, until .... another instance overrides this file-permissions. Kmail will crash. If the programs would leave the file owner:group permissions alone and accept them, then all should play nicely. Minimum: one user at a time wil be able to work. Only locking when actually modifying contents would allow multiple logins as well.
Thank you for your feature request. Kmail1 is currently unmaintained so we are closing all wishes. Please feel free to reopen a feature request for Kmail2 if it has not already been implemented. Thank you for your understanding.
Instead of creating a new feature request, please confirm here if the wishlist is still valid for kmail2.
On Sunday 19 August 2012 03:50:22 Luigi Toscano wrote: > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87731 > > Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano@tiscali.it> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - CC| |luigi.toscano@tiscali.it > Resolution|UNMAINTAINED |WAITINGFORINFO > > --- Comment #2 from Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano@tiscali.it> --- > Instead of creating a new feature request, please confirm here if the > wishlist is still valid for kmail2. I have not tried to do this in ages and do not know if it still be relevant. KDE apps have tended to set permissions when they should leave them alone or warn. This was an attempt to share a mail folder between users.
(In reply to comment #3) > I have not tried to do this in ages and do not know if it still be relevant. > KDE apps have tended to set permissions when they should leave them alone or > warn. > > This was an attempt to share a mail folder between users. Thanks for the reply; Going to back to the bug description the scope of the bug seemed to be bigger. I would say that the proper way to achive this goal is to use common IMAP folders for emails (and for the other examples, shared LDAP folders for addressbooks, or some synchronization mechanism or some centralized service ala delicious for bookmarks). In case of emails, another possibility would be to implement some synchronization systema at akonadi level, but again IMAP can do that already :) Would you agree (the question is for Laurent too) in closing this as WONTFIX (respecting the "by design" thing)?