Re: tag:deleted messages immediately deleted ?

diff --git a/40/5952d90f6aff61fb1b31b6bfd901d52023ce74 b/40/5952d90f6aff61fb1b31b6bfd901d52023ce74
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..000cae6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/40/5952d90f6aff61fb1b31b6bfd901d52023ce74
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+Return-Path: <olivier.berger@telecom-sudparis.eu>\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 7CCEB431FBC\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 05:21:32 -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 NgeuHM3LwM8b for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Fri, 21 Nov 2014 05:21:23 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from zproxy110.enst.fr (zproxy110.enst.fr [137.194.52.33])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57878431FB6\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 05:21:23 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by zproxy110.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F89102091;\r
+       Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:21 +0100 (CET)\r
+Received: from zproxy110.enst.fr ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (zproxy110.enst.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032)\r
+       with ESMTP id vUYeW-xU9EC8; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:17 +0100 (CET)\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by zproxy110.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5558B102098;\r
+       Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:17 +0100 (CET)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zproxy110.enst.fr\r
+Received: from zproxy110.enst.fr ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (zproxy110.enst.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026)\r
+       with ESMTP id nj1YW3wTt3LI; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:17 +0100 (CET)\r
+Received: from localhost (inf-11879.int-evry.fr [157.159.110.251])\r
+       by zproxy110.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22394102031;\r
+       Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:17 +0100 (CET)\r
+From: Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@telecom-sudparis.eu>\r
+To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>\r
+Subject: Re: tag:deleted messages immediately deleted ?\r
+In-Reply-To: <87r3wx9eaq.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>\r
+References: <877fyseuq8.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr>\r
+       <87d28ku7rt.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>\r
+       <871tp0ek8b.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr>\r
+       <87lhn8fmq9.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>\r
+       <877fypre49.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr>\r
+       <87r3wx9eaq.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:16 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <87d28gd703.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain\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: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:21:32 -0000\r
+\r
+David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes:\r
+\r
+> Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@telecom-sudparis.eu> writes:\r
+>\r
+>>\r
+>> So, I've tried and removed the spam tag from the exclude_tags, and\r
+>> suddenly, the search in emacs responds with the 981... which means that\r
+>> most of the deleted ones had the spam tag too.\r
+>>\r
+>>\r
+>> So it means that if one explicitely requests an excluded tag, other\r
+>> exclude tags still apply. Not sure this is the desirable option : maybe\r
+>> if one exclusion is waved, then others should too ?\r
+>>\r
+>> What do you think ?\r
+>\r
+> I'm not sure. What you suggest sounds sensible enough. On the other hand\r
+> the way it behaves now is precisely as documented; I'm not sure whether\r
+> this is because of a design choice or ease of implementation. Maybe Mark\r
+> can comment further on that.  I guess there are even people who\r
+> like/rely on the current functionality, since there always are ;).\r
+>\r
+\r
+In any case, there has been a change in the way this worked.\r
+\r
+For the moment, I'm using the following saved search :\r
+    (tag:deleted or tag:spam) and tag:deleted\r
+which will display the deleted mails.\r
+\r
+FWIW.\r
+\r
+Best regards,\r
+\r
+-- \r
+Olivier BERGER \r
+http://www-public.telecom-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8\r
+Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF\r
+Institut Mines-Telecom, Telecom SudParis, Evry (France)\r