1 Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>
\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 947CB431FAF
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:09:51 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
\r
13 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 6rRvg59+9BA5 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
17 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:09:51 -0800 (PST)
\r
18 Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])
\r
19 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
\r
20 (No client certificate requested)
\r
21 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05F67431FAE
\r
22 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:09:51 -0800 (PST)
\r
23 Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])
\r
24 by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
\r
25 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
26 id 1Ro238-00030m-4K; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:09:46 +0000
\r
27 Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]
\r
29 by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)
\r
30 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
31 id 1Ro237-0004Ig-St; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:09:46 +0000
\r
32 From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
\r
33 To: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>
\r
34 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Automatically exclude tags in notmuch-show
\r
35 In-Reply-To: <20120119225910.GT16740@mit.edu>
\r
36 References: <874nvric7c.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
37 <1327010583-23954-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>
\r
38 <20120119225910.GT16740@mit.edu>
\r
39 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11+78~g7167de1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1
\r
41 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:10:37 +0000
\r
42 Message-ID: <871uqvgrnm.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
44 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
\r
45 X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223
\r
46 X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)
\r
47 X-QM-Body-MD5: 9b1243ddc46a0e2d9cbfe28645d847ab (of first 20000 bytes)
\r
48 X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8
\r
49 X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -
\r
50 X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to
\r
52 spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.
\r
53 This message scored -1.8 points.
\r
54 Summary of the scoring:
\r
55 * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
\r
57 * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]
\r
58 * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
\r
59 provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)
\r
60 * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
\r
62 * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
\r
63 X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean
\r
64 Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
65 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
66 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
68 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
69 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
70 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
71 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
72 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
73 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
74 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
75 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
76 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
77 X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:09:51 -0000
\r
80 Ok Having said this is trivial I have found a problem. What should
\r
81 notmuch do if you do something like
\r
83 notmuch show id:<some-id>
\r
84 and that message is marked with a deleted tag? To be consistent with the
\r
85 other cases (where a deleted message is in a matched thread) we might
\r
86 want to return the message with the not-matched flag set (eg in
\r
87 JSON). But my patch doesn't, as it never even sees the thread since it
\r
90 Looking at notmuch-show.c I think we should not apply the exclude tags
\r
91 to do_show_single, but usually should apply it to do_show. One solution
\r
92 which is simple and is at least close to right would be to get do_show
\r
93 to return the number of threads found. If this is zero then retry the
\r
94 query without the excludes (possible setting the match_flag to zero on
\r
95 each message since we know it does not match)
\r
97 This is not a completely correct solution as if you ask notmuch-show to
\r
98 show more than one thread it might threads which only contain deleted
\r
101 I can't see other good possibilities without slowing down the normal
\r
102 path a lot (eg find all threads that match the original query and then
\r
103 apply the argument above).
\r
107 Incidentally, is there something strange at the end of notmuch-show.c: I
\r
108 can't see how we could ever reach the last half dozen lines.
\r