Re: [notmuch] loss of duplicate messages

diff --git a/38/1bcc84bab24ad50197a7c84f38efe9f5c0cc08 b/38/1bcc84bab24ad50197a7c84f38efe9f5c0cc08
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..5b77ce3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/38/1bcc84bab24ad50197a7c84f38efe9f5c0cc08
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+Return-Path: <jrollins@finestructure.net>\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 5B271431FBD\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri,  5 Feb 2010 09:49:33 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -3.839\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.839 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160,\r
+       BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] autolearn=ham\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 ZlJKg3SufGV6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Fri,  5 Feb 2010 09:49:32 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from serrano.cc.columbia.edu (serrano.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.6])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAECE431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri,  5 Feb 2010 09:49:32 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from servo.finestructure.net (geco.phys.columbia.edu\r
+       [128.59.170.159])\r
+       (user=jgr2110 author=jrollins@finestructure.net mech=PLAIN bits=0)\r
+       by serrano.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o15HnVb8000683\r
+       (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);\r
+       Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:49:32 -0500 (EST)\r
+Received: from jrollins by servo.finestructure.net with local (Exim 4.71)\r
+       (envelope-from <jrollins@finestructure.net>)\r
+       id 1NdSJ9-0007Ov-M2; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:49:31 -0500\r
+From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+To: Marten Veldthuis <marten@veldthuis.com>, Notmuch Mail\r
+       <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+In-Reply-To: <87zl3nr3vc.fsf@marten.rgoc.rug.nl>\r
+References: <878wb7wsnt.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+       <87zl3nr3vc.fsf@marten.rgoc.rug.nl>\r
+Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:49:21 -0500\r
+Message-ID: <871vgzwp26.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";\r
+       micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"\r
+X-No-Spam-Score: Local\r
+X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.6\r
+Subject: Re: [notmuch] loss of duplicate messages\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: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:49:33 -0000\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\r
+\r
+On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:25:59 +0100, Marten Veldthuis <marten@veldthuis.com>=\r
+ wrote:\r
+> This is indeed the correct behaviour of notmuch. There has been some\r
+> discussion on it in the past, I believe with proposals to track both\r
+> messages and show only one; but I don't think I've seen proponents of\r
+> showing both duplicate messages.\r
+>=20\r
+> Personally I'd find it rather annoying if I'd see messages twice. But I\r
+> do see the value in being sure that your mail gets delivered through the\r
+> list. I believe the solution I've seen discussed was for notmuch to\r
+> somehow determine which of the duplicates holds the most information\r
+> (which would be the one through the list, not the one directly to you).\r
+\r
+Hey, Marten.  Thanks for the reply.\r
+\r
+The problem I have with only returning one of the redundant messages is\r
+that I don't think anyone could ever really convince me that notmuch has\r
+the ability to decide which of the redundant messages is the *right* one\r
+to return.  I think notmuch is currently just returning the first one it\r
+indexes, but why is that better than returning the one most recently\r
+indexed?\r
+\r
+A policy of only returning one is going to be problematic for folks who\r
+want or expect to see the other.  And in fact think I want to see both.\r
+I have both, and I've asked notmuch to index both, so why shouldn't it\r
+return both in a search?\r
+\r
+jamie.\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+Content-Type: application/pgp-signature\r
+\r
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)\r
+\r
+iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJLbFoiAAoJEO00zqvie6q8cNgP/jE2Saj7zDn8MbGSQmVryCfh\r
+J2kGCGmhYFTCEuzlt8QvbKFT27i4Z2Fre5Apz4M0NwcGimMqYyQ3W3YDMsqUCfqA\r
+4kHVZLjH+/Ee7t9Z5NGGqoRkt9nSWjCT7qeM2A4/vVgQrbkU4qN6y6MXCc+hX24o\r
+Uyx+WORNC06W9dnU8Pnhrz9gBKPaI3BCY5zhtdyqr77tuWaQazoAfspZ3wJRkJub\r
+O6eZYZdKFc+whsSOFfzCX9KeQ7+G1tYP2bjjL5DYhiJR7cYPXN8dfHOawY/2zyzz\r
+GF32eT229v+bB+4auMEXI7nIO9eJ6us6KglNXQghwUi9JUX3aFXxEyqwOVankCHU\r
+9MyZ+npLh6o3IaLBTi4fL73JPMYO+FxbJoHq4u42M0yk/2isCT/ejOKZ1b8+E6S/\r
+o2CIatckE1NDzFM4rWnrFmfBIp3GbSbOEjo8t690D/glGq2OdRcyA0j6W8h+gmB5\r
+jw0I+AB9t+rX/x6Th1QOOHyQSWuw0jePrysaon2pS4fjW0Q7SbqIXHxVSmq+mi6F\r
+GX89alCQxmpL8RE9NGjA5T+FKr+7Nl9ZTJ9xwH74b5utR78tSPpENPhLiwnaTb+Q\r
+OwViyKy+DfnZvOxGg2w0ng7RHJGCEsgyKI5TX5PumapImAxqhKZ6dDdeVQdHPCHk\r
+nUpKptAx+76gy3cQMNds\r
+=dd/C\r
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+--=-=-=--\r