1 Return-Path: <tom@dbservice.com>
\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 946F34196F2
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 05:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001] autolearn=ham
\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 KSW6Muj2crCP for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Mon, 12 Apr 2010 05:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
\r
17 Received: from office.neopsis.com (office.neopsis.com [78.46.209.98])
\r
18 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384BC431FC1
\r
19 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 05:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
\r
20 Received: from calvin.caurea.org ([62.65.141.13])
\r
21 (authenticated user tom@dbservice.com) by office.neopsis.com
\r
22 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher AES256-SHA (256 bits));
\r
23 Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:25:23 +0200
\r
24 Message-ID: <4BC31133.6000105@dbservice.com>
\r
25 Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:25:23 +0200
\r
26 From: Tomas Carnecky <tom@dbservice.com>
\r
27 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
\r
28 rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
\r
30 To: Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
\r
31 Subject: Re: [PATCH] notmuch new --new-tags=tags...
\r
32 References: <n2x87b3a4191004100803z9d4c4c2bp52f5cf0d7b712362@mail.gmail.com>
\r
33 <871velp0be.fsf@SSpaeth.de> <87y6gseval.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
\r
34 In-Reply-To: <87y6gseval.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
\r
35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
\r
36 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
\r
37 Cc: notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>, Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
\r
38 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
39 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
41 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
42 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
43 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
44 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
45 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
46 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
47 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
48 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
49 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
50 X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:25:37 -0000
\r
52 On 4/12/10 1:59 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
\r
53 > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:00:37 +0200, "Sebastian Spaeth"<Sebastian@SSpaeth.de> wrote:
\r
54 >> On 2010-04-10, Anthony Towns wrote:
\r
55 >>> The attached patch makes "notmuch new --new-tags=unread,new" set the
\r
56 >>> "unread" and "new" tags on any new mail it finds rather than "unread"
\r
57 >>> and "inbox". Or whatever other tags you happen to specify.
\r
59 >> Thanks for the patch. I can't comment on the code quality, but rather
\r
60 >> than having to specify the set of new tags on the command line every
\r
61 >> time, I think it would make more sense to put them in the notmuch config
\r
62 >> file as this patch does:
\r
63 >> id:1268432006-24333-2-git-send-email-bgamari.foss@gmail.com
\r
65 > I was thinking about this, and it seems to me that we really need is a
\r
66 > way to just specify which tags should be applied to new messages based
\r
67 > on search terms. It's becoming pretty clear that most people are doing
\r
68 > some sort of post-notmuch-new tag processing to modify the tags of new
\r
69 > messages to suite their needs. Why not just integrate this directly
\r
70 > into the notmuch-new processing itself? It seems like if this was
\r
71 > integrated into notmuch-new directly, the entire processing of new
\r
72 > messages could be sped up considerably, so that one wouldn't have to
\r
73 > call multiple notmuch-new processes in succession.
\r
75 > I'm not sure exactly what the best way to handle it would be, but I can
\r
76 > imagine something like this:
\r
79 > +sent -new -- from:jrollins@finestructure.net
\r
80 > +drafts -new -- folder:draft
\r
81 > +notmuch -- from:notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
82 > +unread +inbox -new -- tag:new
\r
84 > These are all just commands for "notmuch tag" that would be run on all
\r
85 > the new messages as they're processed. Each new message would be given
\r
86 > "new" tag by default, and then the new tag commands would be run. So it
\r
87 > would be the equivalent of running the following commands:
\r
89 > notmuch new --new-tags=new
\r
90 > notmuch tag +sent -new -- from:jrollins@finestructure.net
\r
91 > notmuch tag +drafts -new -- folder:draft
\r
92 > notmuch tag +notmuch -- from:notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
93 > notmuch tag +unread +inbox -- tag:new
\r
95 > This would make things much easier for everyone who is doing post-new
\r
96 > tag processing, which I think is probably most people. And I'm sure it
\r
97 > could be made much more efficient (if coded properly) than running all
\r
98 > these notmuch commands in succession, especially for people who have a
\r
99 > lot of post-new tag processing to do. Keeping the syntax identical to
\r
100 > the notmuch-tag command syntax would keep things simple as well.
\r
102 > Do people who do a lot of post-notmuch-new tag processing think
\r
103 > something like this would suite their needs?
\r
105 I have a patch which adds support for hooks which are run when tags are
\r
106 added, removed or new messages added to notmuch. But perhaps the
\r
107 fork/exec overhead of running the hooks would slow the processing down
\r
109 See http://caurea.org/2009/12/22/a-different-approach-to-email-tagging/,
\r
110 though that didn't work out quite how I expected. Classifying spam/ham
\r
111 is easy (that's what dspam was written for), but patch/not-patch
\r
112 resulted in a lot false-positives, especially when people quote emails
\r
113 which included patches. Same with the 'notmuch' and 'xorg' tags: dspam
\r
114 had trouble figuring out to which mailing list Carl sent the email (he
\r
115 sends emails to both lists).
\r