1 Return-Path: <felipe.contreras@gmail.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 4F3EA429E47
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:44:17 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
\r
13 FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled
\r
14 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
15 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
16 with ESMTP id W+3fMUlnMYBH for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
17 Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:44:13 -0800 (PST)
\r
18 Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com (mail-la0-f51.google.com
\r
19 [209.85.215.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
\r
20 (No client certificate requested)
\r
21 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FC03429E38
\r
22 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:44:13 -0800 (PST)
\r
23 Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ep20so211234lab.24
\r
24 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 13:44:09 -0800 (PST)
\r
25 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
\r
26 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
\r
28 bh=88kGWiHKZouXnMxC84BVLbePd4GxQltuwixh1X3HCvE=;
\r
29 b=Bq94mWX3wRJklcdY1hLP9sNQIAgiEE//kO42/Ij004uIBqTfLcNXyBwxNN8fCaE4G6
\r
30 KLo9rElAEwOJE/K9uwsEvqPkJLcIlq7FjInq4R09/h36xVs3cb5rYu7cuuthERw0GsCZ
\r
31 9pVJAXSkK8+GSHM0VCZ8E7wk2Npd0V0lzsGdZbgwqNDC1bUwUs0LgW0zp1qr0+uLTWkG
\r
32 U0JyfQl6kv/m7XSf4gUNIY80Xy2Tw+AGJd+3vO5fjX/8+tpF912xX4sC4N7dox2TAkCB
\r
33 cQmCxBxQ90ZzQD83RKFK7Hy8O+V6JT4gUJc+TDNq0RdgQNV8tCgiQBZtdiT6pkHBHOth
\r
36 X-Received: by 10.112.144.197 with SMTP id so5mr5021318lbb.22.1383515049317;
\r
37 Sun, 03 Nov 2013 13:44:09 -0800 (PST)
\r
38 Received: by 10.114.201.69 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:44:09 -0800 (PST)
\r
39 In-Reply-To: <87k3gprzo0.fsf@jhu.edu>
\r
40 References: <5274f93e254b5_6de7f51e7849@nysa.notmuch>
\r
41 <87zjpmoqtz.fsf@nikula.org> <87k3gprzo0.fsf@jhu.edu>
\r
42 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 15:44:09 -0600
\r
44 <CAMP44s31aT9acTW8xyV5OQgA+i-mO2gLk9AaAuOKPhXNCcKf3g@mail.gmail.com>
\r
45 Subject: Re: Getting the right root mail of the thread
\r
46 From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
\r
47 To: Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu>
\r
48 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
\r
49 Cc: "notmuch@notmuchmail.org" <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
50 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
51 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
53 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
54 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
55 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
56 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
57 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
58 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
59 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
60 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
61 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
62 X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 21:44:17 -0000
\r
64 On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu> wrote:
\r
65 > Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> writes:
\r
66 >> I think it's actually worse than what your example demonstrates. It's
\r
67 >> the subject of the newest/oldest *matching* message that gets used. In
\r
68 >> your example, the first/last messages in the thread apparently match
\r
71 > The behavior is there because subjects frequently change in long
\r
72 > threads, and this allows the subject to refer to the most recent unread
\r
73 > message (if we're sorting in the default order). The
\r
74 > reason I requested and wrote in this behavior five years ago or so (my
\r
75 > only c contribution ever) was that numerous business associates would
\r
76 > keep email lists by replying and changing the subject. This is *very*
\r
77 > common outside of programming circles. Even in programming circles,
\r
78 > subjects frequently change on mailing list (with a "[was: ...]"
\r
81 Yes but how important is it to keep track of that?
\r
83 I say it is much more important to track threads like this properly:
\r
85 foobar patch 0 (usually a summary/overview)
\r
87 | +-comment on patch 1
\r
90 | +-comment on patch 3
\r
94 But fine, let's concentrate on the common user scenario (which is not
\r
95 common for notmuch users at all). We can have a thread like this:
\r
98 + Shall we go for some beers? (was: No work on Friday)
\r
99 + What about project X? (was: No work on Friday)
\r
101 So which is the correct summary of the thread? The fact of the matter
\r
102 is that we are talking about three threads now.
\r
104 Gmail does this correctly. Each time the subject is changed, it's
\r
105 considered a new thread.
\r
107 > The current behavior can be annoying, but the old behavior could make
\r
108 > the MUA quite unusable in a number of circumstances. (And yes, an MUA
\r
109 > that fails on reading mail from senders with bad emailing practices is
\r
110 > unusable for me.)
\r
112 This is rhetorical warfare. It's wouldn't be "failing on reading mail".
\r
114 If displaying the original subject is failing, then we might be
\r
115 failing when searching with older first. Why would the order of the
\r
116 search affect the thread summary?
\r
118 > Maybe there should be a "show original subject" toggle? That wouldn't be
\r
119 > too hard, though it would require another call to the library and
\r
120 > regenerating the search results.
\r
122 Yes. I say it should be a property of the query. I don't see why
\r
123 anybody would want it any other way, but it wouldn't hurt to make it
\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / blob