After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 322596 - 2.4 New-mail check takes much longer than 2.2
2.4 New-mail check takes much longer than 2.2
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 336076
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
2.4.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-mail-maintainers
Evolution QA team
evolution[IMAP]
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2005-11-27 21:46 UTC by Jeremy Nickurak
Modified: 2006-03-27 23:18 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.11/2.12



Description Jeremy Nickurak 2005-11-27 21:46:12 UTC
When checking a large set of IMAP mailboxes, 2.4 takes a substantially longer
amount of time to update the "new message" counters in the folder list than 2.2.
On my set of approximately 40 folders, including some folders that have over a
thousand messages, 2.2 took on the order of 10-20 seconds, whereas 2.4 takes
several minutes.

Of interest, 2.2 took a number of minutes to open the larger folders for
viewing, whereas 2.4 opens them almost instantaneously. This was not a problem,
as the large folders were typically viewer rarely, and usually locally on the
imap server.

It seems that 2.4 retieves all the message envelopes before updateing the new
message counter, whereas 2.2 only retieved them as needed.
Comment 1 André Klapper 2005-11-27 23:47:32 UTC
adding keywords, this is "IMAP" account type and not the deprecated,
experimental "IMAP4rev1" account type i assume?
Comment 2 Jeremy Nickurak 2005-11-27 23:52:29 UTC
Both actually.
Comment 3 Jeremy Nickurak 2006-03-26 20:02:03 UTC
Still in 2.4.2.1.

I've switched to using thunderbird for mail as a temporary fix, since it is able to tell me what folders have what amount of new mail in a matter of seconds instead of minutes, just like evolution 2.2 was able to.
Comment 4 Karsten Bräckelmann 2006-03-27 23:18:26 UTC
Jeremy, thanks for taking the time to report this bug.

I believe this is the same issue as bug 336076. Although that bug was filed later, it already has a lot more detailed information. Thus, I am going to mark this one as a duplicate.

Jeremy, I'd like you to confirm this indeed is the very same issue and add any additional information you can to bug 336076. Thanks.


Although you likely alraedy know this: Running 'CAMEL_VERBOSE_DEBUG=1 evolution' should tell you, if this indeed is the same issue.


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 336076 ***