1 Return-Path: <cworth@cworth.org>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E395431FD0
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:53:19 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=disabled
\r
13 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
14 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
15 with ESMTP id H6bEj7W57CNV; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:53:18 -0800 (PST)
\r
16 Received: from yoom.home.cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
17 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7548C431FB5;
\r
18 Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:53:18 -0800 (PST)
\r
19 Received: by yoom.home.cworth.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
\r
20 id DD48E2540DE; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:48:50 +1000 (EST)
\r
21 From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
\r
22 To: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
23 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/8] Custom query parser, date search, folder
\r
25 In-Reply-To: <20110202050336.GB28537@mit.edu>
\r
26 References: <1295165458-9573-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu>
\r
27 <20110202050336.GB28537@mit.edu>
\r
28 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.5 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1
\r
30 Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:48:50 -0800
\r
31 Message-ID: <87sjw6hx2l.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
\r
33 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
\r
34 micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
\r
35 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
36 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
38 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
39 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
40 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
41 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
42 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
43 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
44 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
45 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
46 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
47 X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 22:53:19 -0000
\r
50 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
\r
52 Restricting my reply to one tiny bit of your mail:
\r
55 > non-recursive is the only thing that makes sense for Maildir++ folders
\r
57 Either I'm not understanding Maildir++ folders, or I don't agree with
\r
60 I might have an email archive that looks like this:
\r
73 With the above setup, what would be unreasonable about wanting to search
\r
74 for all work-related messages (across all projects, say) with a string
\r
75 like "folder:work" ?
\r
77 Now, a person might definitely want to search for messages in the
\r
78 ".work" folder directly, (not including the sub-folders), so we should
\r
79 provide support for users to get at that behavior as well, (such as a
\r
80 proposed "folder:work$" or so).
\r
82 To me, both cases are perfectly legitimate, and I don't understand an
\r
83 argument that claims that only one makes sense. (Or again, I may be
\r
84 misunderstanding something.)
\r
89 carl.d.worth@intel.com
\r
92 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
\r
94 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
\r
95 Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
\r
97 iD8DBQFNSd9S6JDdNq8qSWgRAhnIAJ9h/FR1ZT4D+HnzrsqXc+cCK0zYNACeKX2D
\r
98 DG/7w04XQ5gmIFbyHRMMdyI=
\r
100 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
\r