Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2CF26DE140C for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:45:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.668 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 48T6wt_8sy0V for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:45:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22B686DE0C66 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 11:45:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4278520214 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:45:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:45:52 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nospammail.net; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=8mNiB4QbBc1LdY63YGWan2v8aNo=; b=No2kFU 3NAM7jTx6ngRTl/GL5LwgQIeFz/jtYDpJ0LR1vSfdOhZXro0JYHjyB+XBceonBGo ByQjbUIVFLMEvy21DM9vatOrVp0JOmwnxzyiFiCgAz1eWpQOMlLGo16NP5VCtcNZ JPRIX+bhmgJ5wlh4IPvuF/6ryGn6Y/SZ8jEIQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=8mNiB4QbBc1LdY6 3YGWan2v8aNo=; b=p6JmCdWqYhuITAgL26PbzEuCvMxrZghHKR6/8hA4x/H9ygY ZXzMvGLNCIQp1gVOxMhJ4i5S34++vl53JzeNTDW7okohVx0aIeSv34W/G/TaHqG8 jqR6HvI8FTyGI9lJ2d4Dh/N8pLJrQZ7GQvDmU44BsD12nYGBruBPt+UHb+b4= X-Sasl-enc: CWzHu6H+b47jIe+d9ilPwVmN6nFUra8PKu+ghvKqd1Ru 1452455151 Received: from sysoppad.localnet (cust-5286ecc8.wba.access.stipte.nl [82.134.236.200]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E8295C00017 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:45:51 -0500 (EST) From: Erik Quaeghebeur To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: Message-ID's vs. Resent-Message-ID Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:45:49 +0100 Message-ID: <1797484.KB5JPIe8ts@sysoppad> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.8 (Linux/4.1.12-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <2154153.mZhPRoAGrk@sysoppad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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, 10 Jan 2016 19:45:58 -0000 Thanks, Tomi, for your quick response. > > * If yes, for resent messages > > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822#section-3.6.6), does notmuch use > > (the chronologically last) Resent-Message-ID, or the Message-ID? > > the Message-ID Hmm. Is this a conscious decision, or is the resending case just not taken into account? What happens if I have both a message and my own copy of it after resending it to somebody else? I would like to have a record of whom I resent it to, as with forwarded messages (where the forwarded message does have a different message id). Are the Resent-* headers of the resent message merged into the database entry? I guess this last question is more general: with multiple messages with the same Message-ID but differences (for whatever reason), how will these messages be merged in the database? Best, Erik