1 Return-Path: <jani@nikula.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 6CDF8431FAF
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 bOaHYWRg0AJO for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
\r
17 Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com
\r
18 [209.85.215.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
\r
19 (No client certificate requested)
\r
20 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BA7A431FAE
\r
21 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
\r
22 Received: by lahc1 with SMTP id c1so3201075lah.26
\r
23 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
\r
24 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
\r
25 d=google.com; s=20120113;
\r
26 h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version
\r
27 :content-type:x-gm-message-state;
\r
28 bh=EkaV5Jl/ezaPk3IpXjF0JzQSbjMJDMrbcP/SRj8cG/c=;
\r
29 b=IOrbzZRZw5LW4eT+SsfOVtb4TjMu+VezfP/cLuhpc4wxiA71+cQr+vRXwV6NZqEh1W
\r
30 DM8Ucwp+f+X4kEDhyH9KReUbPBA+Rr1QT7KcwYVt7/ak/ypO6VZSGeGz81I0NLqOiGm8
\r
31 BZDxy+/OvcsuYYu6SpHdL/LpWyMrWk2vqWwM9gVgjB47/20mR0TnQQgMRvkq/KMT5yVj
\r
32 vJA3X5jeRqRDBN6Zx3C+D1bzbyO07MP5AC4dDmAhIC3G9RIJyy+CEdYMg/gSaGUBfcj2
\r
33 PeEkjfLOyJaVnzG9b3I+U19o8GxoWYOMVj0dGuEWEvvhKf+MyTFATlVPL7DjiSH6oXjo
\r
35 Received: by 10.112.84.42 with SMTP id v10mr2797767lby.50.1334435164823;
\r
36 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
\r
37 Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw4-fe50dc00-68.dhcp.inet.fi.
\r
39 by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fx5sm854759lbb.5.2012.04.14.13.26.02
\r
40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
\r
41 From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
\r
42 To: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,
\r
43 Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
44 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] emacs: new mua mailto: URI handler
\r
45 In-Reply-To: <87hawmyt8k.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
\r
46 References: <1327865624-7673-1-git-send-email-jrollins@finestructure.net>
\r
47 <1327865624-7673-2-git-send-email-jrollins@finestructure.net>
\r
48 <87hawmyt8k.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>User-Agent:
\r
49 Notmuch/0.12+81~g839a805 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
\r
51 Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:26:00 +0300
\r
52 Message-ID: <87wr5idprb.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
54 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
\r
56 ALoCoQmeYO8hxf+SYUQCfCb0Zk4wi3Icc4Xvw1yp+KzGGi5RF0qEnLi0IPBmwfclx0S5txGsyIjc
\r
57 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
58 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
60 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
61 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
62 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
63 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
64 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
65 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
66 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
67 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
68 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
69 X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:26:07 -0000
\r
71 Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> writes:
\r
73 > On Sun, Jan 29 2012, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
\r
74 >> The new function 'notmuch-mua-mailto' provides an interactive handler
\r
75 >> for rfc6068 "mailto:" URIs. It attempts to implement the rfc6068
\r
76 >> specification: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6068
\r
78 > I am using and finding this patch useful. It has no conflict with
\r
79 > anything when not used. Is there any other objection with pushing it?
\r
81 I'm going through the review queue right now, tagging notmuch::stale any
\r
82 patches that don't apply on master. I was just about to nmbug push stale
\r
83 on this one (2/2). Is that in error? Care to verify?
\r