--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <tomi.ollila@nixu.com>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F852429E26\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:05:16 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: 0\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none]\r
+ autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+ by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+ with ESMTP id B+IMM1bsLuYG for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:05:14 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from mail-gw3.nixu.fi (mail-gw3.nixu.fi [193.209.237.7])\r
+ (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))\r
+ (No client certificate requested)\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB27F429E25\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:05:13 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from pps.filterd (mail-gw3 [127.0.0.1])\r
+ by mail-gw3.nixu.fi (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id pBCG5BHG018837;\r
+ Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:05:11 +0200\r
+Received: from taco2.nixu.fi (taco2.nixu.fi [194.197.118.31])\r
+ by mail-gw3.nixu.fi with ESMTP id 114cs0sv60-1\r
+ (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);\r
+ Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:05:11 +0200\r
+Received: from taco2.nixu.fi (taco2.nixu.fi [194.197.118.31])\r
+ by taco2.nixu.fi (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id\r
+ pBCG59CO006795; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:05:09 +0200\r
+From: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>\r
+To: Bart Bunting <bart@ursys.com.au>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: ANNOUNCE: nottoomuch-addresses.pl version 1.3\r
+In-Reply-To: <yf639cx5peg.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>\r
+References: <m2d3c8e22v.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi> <m2vcq0qgs6.fsf@ursys.com.au>\r
+ <yf6wraf5sq2.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi> <yf68vmr5j9n.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>\r
+ <m2pqg32pic.fsf@ursys.com.au> <yf662hv5h8o.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>\r
+ <87wrabmb43.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+ <m2k46a3d6a.fsf@ursys.com.au> <yf639cx5peg.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+93~g631d290 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1\r
+ (i686-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+X-Face: HhBM'cA~<r"^Xv\KRN0P{vn'Y"Kd;zg_y3S[4)KSN~s?O\"QPoL\r
+ $[Xv_BD:i/F$WiEWax}R(MPS`^UaptOGD`*/=@\1lKoVa9tnrg0TW?"r7aRtgk[F\r
+ !)g;OY^,BjTbr)Np:%c_o'jj,Z\r
+Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:05:09 +0200\r
+Message-ID: <yf6k461n5ca.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.5.7110,\r
+ 1.0.211, 0.0.0000 definitions=2011-12-12_02:2011-12-12, 2011-12-12,\r
+ 1970-01-01 signatures=0\r
+X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0\r
+ ipscore=0 suspectscore=0\r
+ phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0\r
+ reason=mlx\r
+ scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1112120133\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+ <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:05:16 -0000\r
+\r
+On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:03:19 +0200, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> wrote:\r
+> On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:45:49 +1100, Bart Bunting <bart@ursys.com.au> wrote:\r
+> > Hi,\r
+\r
+... \r
+\r
+> \r
+> > The only other idea I have, which is only half formed, is that it would\r
+> > be nice to prioritize emails that are more important than others.\r
+> > \r
+> > I'm not sure exactly how this would work but something like:\r
+> > - Addresses I have actualy sent email to rather than jjust received from\r
+> > get a high priority in the result.\r
+> > - Addresses that have sent me email directly rather than just to a list\r
+> > get next priority.\r
+> > - All other emails after that.\r
+> > \r
+> > Also some sort of weighting within the groups to do with frequency of\r
+> > emails sent or something.\r
+> > \r
+> > Does that make sense? Would it be hard to implement?\r
+> \r
+> Neat idea. To implement the feature into program is not too hard. \r
+> Somehow determine weight for each email address, store that into \r
+> hash (key address, value weight). \r
+> Then, when writing addresses file, sort first by weight and then \r
+> ascii order. The hash is also stored to disk (using tie()) and used \r
+> when address file updated.\r
+> \r
+> Now, how to determine good (generic) rules for weights (and maybe\r
+> some user-defined rules as well) is the question.\r
+\r
+The latest version (1.3) now stores addresses in 'newest-first'\r
+order to the "address file" -- the fgrep printing matches will\r
+therefore also output the lines in this order.\r
+\r
+For me this seems to work pretty nicely.\r
+\r
+This version (1.3) relies notmuch show ... to output emails in\r
+this order (which it seems to do now). If this changes I'll \r
+have to check how to "fix" my implementation...\r
+\r
+The program is located at the same address:\r
+\r
+http://www.iki.fi/too/nottoomuch/nottoomuch-addresses.sh\r
+\r
+sha1sum is f9289ed4bf9034d99e390aaf3d5fcac3d815ea20 and doc page is at\r
+ \r
+http://www.iki.fi/too/nottoomuch/nottoomuch-addresses/\r
+\r
+\r
+> > Cheers\r
+> > \r
+> > Bart\r
+> \r
+> Thanks,\r
+> \r
+> Tomi\r
+\r
+Tomi\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff