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 88D0D431FAF for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:30:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] autolearn=disabled 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 RGKoHTV20Dne for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:30:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from guru.guru-group.fi (guru.guru-group.fi [46.183.73.34]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E18E431FAE for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:30:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from guru.guru-group.fi (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by guru.guru-group.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E10710036F; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:30:22 +0300 (EEST) From: Tomi Ollila To: Michal Nazarewicz , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] notmuch-show: include Bcc header in json output In-Reply-To: References: <7b1848a5828820912e3f7b960528b0dbc6a8b361.1347258748.git.mina86@mina86.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.2+162~ged38330 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.2.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Face: HhBM'cA~ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:30:15 -0000 On Mon, Sep 10 2012, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10 2012, Tomi Ollila wrote: >> Thanks, that explains (also why my attempts to show Message-ID has >> failed ;) > > Yeah. Message ID is the other header I'm missing. It should be > possible to add it the same way though. Actually, I'm happy with keybinding c i (and c I) to get Message-Id, so I don't have desire for it (anymore). The Bcc is much more desirable as it completes the info seen in To and Cc headers... Just that I don't know how notmuch chooses which mail to present when the mail in "sent" and "received" folders have same message-id but only sent has the bcc: field. > Best regards, _ _ ... > ..o | Computer Science, Micha=C5=82 =E2=80=9Cmina86=E2=80=9D Nazarewicz = (o o) ... Tomi