Re: Proposal: List-Id

diff --git a/98/e113afb753be3bcfdefb9021be39c3fb45a748 b/98/e113afb753be3bcfdefb9021be39c3fb45a748
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..85dd5a1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/98/e113afb753be3bcfdefb9021be39c3fb45a748
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+Return-Path: <david@tethera.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 9FBE2431FCF\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 04:36:43 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: 2.438\r
+X-Spam-Level: **\r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL=2.438] 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 q-4HJeHD9tJ4 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Mon, 16 Mar 2015 04:36:40 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mx.xen14.node3324.gplhost.com (gitolite.debian.net\r
+       [87.98.215.224])\r
+       (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))\r
+       (No client certificate requested)\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E336431FB6\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 04:36:40 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from remotemail by mx.xen14.node3324.gplhost.com with local (Exim\r
+       4.80) (envelope-from <david@tethera.net>)\r
+       id 1YXTJE-0000uv-PW; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:35:48 +0000\r
+Received: (nullmailer pid 7965 invoked by uid 1000); Mon, 16 Mar 2015\r
+       11:35:35 -0000\r
+From: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>\r
+To: Harlan Lieberman-Berg <hlieberman@setec.io>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: Proposal: List-Id\r
+In-Reply-To: <87wq2huan3.fsf@setec.io>\r
+References: <87wq2huan3.fsf@setec.io>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.19+67~gdbe9924 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:35:35 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <878uex2n08.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain\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, 16 Mar 2015 11:36:43 -0000\r
+\r
+Harlan Lieberman-Berg <hlieberman@setec.io> writes:\r
+>\r
+> The standard for identifying mailing lists seems to be List-Id, as per\r
+> RFC 2919.  I can understand the desire to keep the number of headers\r
+> included in the header block low, but I wonder if this might be a common\r
+> enough use-case to suggest its inclusion.\r
+>\r
+\r
+I think the real blocker at this point is that some copies of a message\r
+may have list-id header and some not. Currently we only index the first\r
+copy of a message that arrives. Indexing all copies would probably be a\r
+good step in any case, but e.g. handling deletion of files requires some\r
+care in that case.\r
+\r
+d\r