From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
To: Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org>,
	Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,
	Xavier Maillard <xma@gnu.org>, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] config: only set search.exclude_tags to "deleted;
 spam;	" during setup
In-Reply-To: <87ipk3au08.fsf@praet.org>
References: <1326586654-16840-3-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu>
	<1327000744-25463-1-git-send-email-pieter@praet.org>
	<1327000744-25463-4-git-send-email-pieter@praet.org>
	<m2r4yr2xmy.fsf@kcals.intra.maillard.im>
	<874nvnqrgq.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <87ipk3au08.fsf@praet.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+187~g43d4f26 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.1.1
	(i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:22:25 +0000
Message-ID: <8739b6opce.fsf@nikula.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Precedence: list

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:05:27 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:53:41 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:14:13 +0100, Xavier Maillard <xavier@maillard.im> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:19:03 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org> wrote:
> > > > If the 'search.exclude_tags' option is missing from the config file,
> > > > its value is automatically set to "deleted;spam;".  Taking PoLS/DWIM
> > > > into account, this should probably only happen during setup.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch is actually Austin Clements' work:
> > > >   id:"20120117203211.GQ16740@mit.edu"
> > > 
> > > I do not think this is a sane default. As I told it in another post. I
> > > do not expect notmuch to skew my search queries not that I specifically
> > > asked.
> > 
> > Hi, Xavier.  Do you currently mark things as "deleted" or "spam"?  If
> > not, this would have no affect on your search results.  If you do, do
> > you currently expect those messages to show up in searches?  If so, why
> > did you mark them as "deleted" or "spam" to begin with?
> > 
> > I agree with your point in principle (ie. I don't generally want my
> > searches tampered with behind the scenes) but the issue here is about
> > messages that have been explicitly tagged as a form of "trash".  Trash
> > is by it's nature something you're trying to get rid of.  If you wanted
> > to find something in the future, why would you put it in the trash in
> > the first place?
> > 
> 
> You definitely have a point, but then again, who are we to assume that
> the terms "deleted" and "spam" have the *exact* same meaning for
> everyone?  (also see id:"8739bbo0br.fsf@praet.org")

"deleted" used to be a tag recognized by notmuch, and it used to sync to
the T (trashed) maildir flag. Even if notmuch won't delete any of your
mails now, I don't think you should use "deleted" on messages you want
to see again. Please let's not split hairs about this.

There really should be a definitive list of tags that are special to
lib/cli/emacs (like "inbox", "unread", "deleted", ...), or are
recommended for specific purposes (like "new" as an intermediate tag
before more sophisticated tagging), to avoid prolonged discussions like
this.

BR,
Jani.