Re: notmuch Digest, Vol 20, Issue 57

diff --git a/0a/3231e25426631d7e65b11a83935ac8a765b209 b/0a/3231e25426631d7e65b11a83935ac8a765b209
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..1a043dd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/0a/3231e25426631d7e65b11a83935ac8a765b209
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+Return-Path: <sanderboer@mauc.nl>\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 1F62B431FB6\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed,  6 Jul 2011 11:31:07 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -1.573\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=0.726, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,\r
+       RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 I0IXJAjZXorQ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Wed,  6 Jul 2011 11:31:06 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from eu1sys200aog101.obsmtp.com (eu1sys200aog101.obsmtp.com\r
+       [207.126.144.111])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 69F4D431FD0\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed,  6 Jul 2011 11:31:05 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mail-qw0-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54]) (using TLSv1) by\r
+       eu1sys200aob101.postini.com ([207.126.147.11]) with SMTP\r
+       ID DSNKThSp6F0TCpxJaVM31LcBYKS4ZEWTLJ2J@postini.com;\r
+       Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:31:05 UTC\r
+Received: by qwc9 with SMTP id 9so115775qwc.41\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:31:03 -0700 (PDT)\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Received: by 10.224.126.12 with SMTP id a12mr6553123qas.152.1309977063468;\r
+       Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:31:03 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by 10.224.47.68 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 11:31:03 -0700 (PDT)\r
+In-Reply-To: <87wrg3pyra.fsf@SSpaeth.de>\r
+References: <mailman.5.1309146869.12973.notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+       <cuozkl367o2.fsf@mauc.nl> <87wrg5905c.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>\r
+       <87wrg3pyra.fsf@SSpaeth.de>\r
+Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:31:03 +0200\r
+Message-ID:\r
+ <CACEMMeewjcM1Vo=uq_wrhe_5Z+OESsJD_29-D7z5JxT6Mvq7qA@mail.gmail.com>\r
+Subject: Re: notmuch Digest, Vol 20, Issue 57\r
+From: Sander Boer <sanderboer@mauc.nl>\r
+To: Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian@sspaeth.de>\r
+Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364ece50882fa904a76acdfe\r
+Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\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: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:31:07 -0000\r
+\r
+--0016364ece50882fa904a76acdfe\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1\r
+\r
+Dear Sebastian,\r
+\r
+If IMAP supports tags, is that not a big deal ?\r
+I mean, having a converging point for all tags, is that not like the holy\r
+grail in this field ?\r
+\r
+Obviously, there must be a caveat, you mentioned client-support, which is\r
+inconvenient, but of no long term consequence.\r
+Do you know what the status is of *server* support ? Because imo this *is* a\r
+big deal, without real standardized server support an IMAP store for tags is\r
+off the table.\r
+\r
+best,\r
+Sander\r
+\r
+\r
+On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian@sspaeth.de>wrote:\r
+\r
+> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:22:23 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:\r
+> > First, it's important to understand that any friction here comes from\r
+> > Gmail exposing its tags as folders, (which in turn could be the lack of\r
+> > availability of a more tag-aware protocol than imap).\r
+>\r
+> Even risking to become a bit thread-offtopic: IMAP itself supports tags\r
+> just fine and should be able to read/set/search all tags just fine (even\r
+> any user defined). My feeling is more that this is a lack of tag-using\r
+> IMAP clients to expose existing tag functionality. Thunderbird is doing\r
+> fine exposing up to 4 user-defined tags that are synced to the server,\r
+> but it's still not doing all it can.\r
+>\r
+> I still believe that it would be possible to eg. sync all our notmuch\r
+> tags to the IMAP server, which would help enormously with syncing across\r
+> machines. I still have the long-term goal of offlineimap being able to sync\r
+> notmuch tags. (very long term, though)\r
+>\r
+> As for Gmail and folders, I think it is an ugly kludge leading to all\r
+> kinds of awkward behavior (at least when treating Gmail as an IMAP\r
+> server). On the other hand it exposes nice tag behavior to clients that\r
+> wouldn't support it.\r
+>\r
+> Sebastian\r
+>\r
+\r
+--0016364ece50882fa904a76acdfe\r
+Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1\r
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\r
+\r
+<br><br><div id=3D"WISESTAMP_SIG_4183"><div style=3D"font-size: 13.3px; fon=\r
+t-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dear Sebastian,<br><br>If=\r
+ IMAP supports tags, is that not a big deal ?<br>I mean, having a convergin=\r
+g point for all tags, is that not like the holy grail in this field ?<br>\r
+<br>Obviously, there must be a caveat, you mentioned client-support, which =\r
+is inconvenient, but of no long term consequence.<br>Do you know what the s=\r
+tatus is of *server* support ? Because imo this *is* a big deal, without re=\r
+al standardized server support an IMAP store for tags is off the table.<br>\r
+<br>best,<br>Sander<br><img src=3D"http://p1.wisestamp.com/pixel.png?p=3Dmo=\r
+zilla&amp;v=3D2.4.5.0&amp;t=3D1309976720359&amp;u=3D14affd52174f1457" heigh=\r
+t=3D"1" width=3D"1"></div></div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, =\r
+Jun 30, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Sebastian Spaeth <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"=\r
+mailto:Sebastian@sspaeth.de">Sebastian@sspaeth.de</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>\r
+<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=\r
+x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class=3D"im">On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:22=\r
+:23 -0700, Carl Worth &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:cworth@cworth.org">cworth@cwort=\r
+h.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>\r
+\r
+&gt; First, it&#39;s important to understand that any friction here comes f=\r
+rom<br>\r
+&gt; Gmail exposing its tags as folders, (which in turn could be the lack o=\r
+f<br>\r
+&gt; availability of a more tag-aware protocol than imap).<br>\r
+<br>\r
+</div>Even risking to become a bit thread-offtopic: IMAP itself supports ta=\r
+gs<br>\r
+just fine and should be able to read/set/search all tags just fine (even<br=\r
+>\r
+any user defined). My feeling is more that this is a lack of tag-using<br>\r
+IMAP clients to expose existing tag functionality. Thunderbird is doing<br>\r
+fine exposing up to 4 user-defined tags that are synced to the server,<br>\r
+but it&#39;s still not doing all it can.<br>\r
+<br>\r
+I still believe that it would be possible to eg. sync all our notmuch<br>\r
+tags to the IMAP server, which would help enormously with syncing across<br=\r
+>\r
+machines. I still have the long-term goal of offlineimap being able to sync=\r
+<br>\r
+notmuch tags. (very long term, though)<br>\r
+<br>\r
+As for Gmail and folders, I think it is an ugly kludge leading to all<br>\r
+kinds of awkward behavior (at least when treating Gmail as an IMAP<br>\r
+server). On the other hand it exposes nice tag behavior to clients that<br>\r
+wouldn&#39;t support it.<br>\r
+<font color=3D"#888888"><br>\r
+Sebastian<br>\r
+</font></blockquote></div><br>\r
+\r
+--0016364ece50882fa904a76acdfe--\r