Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06FDD40DDE8 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:31:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4LUCHrV+jXBY for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:30:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3-g21.free.fr (smtp3-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.3]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED9940DDE7 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:30:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from racin (unknown [82.239.207.166]) by smtp3-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43970A6232; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:30:45 +0100 (CET) From: Matthieu Lemerre To: Jameson Rollins , =?utf-8?Q?C=C3=A9dric?= Cabessa , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] How to improve the mail handling workflow? In-Reply-To: <87tyjjg1m1.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> References: <87fwv65zw1.fsf@free.fr> <201011131743.39114.ced@ryick.net> <87iq01gj6c.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <878w0vet4z.fsf@free.fr> <87tyjjg1m1.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.5 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:43:02 +0100 Message-ID: <87oc9rintl.fsf@free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 21:31:02 -0000 On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:13:26 -0500, Jameson Rollins wrote: > On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 18:01:48 +0100, Matthieu Lemerre wrote: > > Now when you consistently label all your mails, you just don't want to > > have unclassified mails. That is what we meant by "mail you can't find". > > It sounds like this would just as easily be accomplished with a way to > search for all messages that don't have any tags. I think this would be something complementary and indeed very useful. But the solution I have proposed is not only to ensure that there are no unclassified mails, but also to help you classify your mails if it is not done automatically. I think there are a lot of people used to classify their emails, so I think this behaviour could be an option in notmuch (even if not set by default). Matthieu