--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>\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 976AC431FBC\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 09:56:44 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -1.098\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,\r
+ NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, 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 nZfJuDap6fzP for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Sat, 5 Oct 2013 09:56:38 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])\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 7D1AD431FAF\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 09:56:38 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])\r
+ by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)\r
+ (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+ id 1VSV9c-000637-1L; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 17:56:32 +0100\r
+Received: from 93-97-24-31.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.24.31] helo=localhost)\r
+ by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71)\r
+ (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+ id 1VSV9b-0003R0-LP; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 17:56:31 +0100\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>\r
+Subject: Re: Emacs: how to remove "unread" tag while reading emails\r
+In-Reply-To: <20131005162202.GJ21611@mit.edu>\r
+References: <87hadi0xse.fsf@boo.workgroup> <87pprk3whs.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+ <20131005162202.GJ21611@mit.edu>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.16 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 17:56:30 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <87li274pxd.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8\r
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\r
+X-Sender-Host-Address: 93.97.24.31\r
+X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)\r
+X-QM-Body-MD5: 0e5ca494ea25bf283177f089d80daee1 (of first 20000 bytes)\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Score: 0.0\r
+X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: /\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to\r
+ determine if it is\r
+ spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.\r
+ This message scored 0.0 points. Summary of the scoring: \r
+ * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail\r
+ provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)\r
+ * 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list\r
+X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean\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: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 16:56:44 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+On Sat, 05 Oct 2013, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:\r
+> Great list.\r
+>\r
+> One of the problems with the current approach, which most of these\r
+> options share, is that there's no feedback. For example, when I enter\r
+> a thread, I have no idea if the first message was unread or not. I'd\r
+> like a solution that either naturally doesn't have this problem, that\r
+> visually indicates that a message *was* unread, or that delays all\r
+> unread marking until you leave the thread (possibly combined with a\r
+> visual indication of what will be marked unread). Bonus points if\r
+> it's easy to adjust what happens, such as saying "keep everything\r
+> unread" or "keep everything unread except this one".\r
+\r
+I like the idea of not doing the update until you actually leave the\r
+buffer.\r
+\r
+> To this end, here are my two proposals:\r
+>\r
+> A1) Mark whole thread read when you leave it (via q, X, A or friends)\r
+> and provide a binding to leave a thread without marking it read (C-x k\r
+> would do, but we should provide an explicit one; perhaps C-u prefixing\r
+> other "leave" bindings? For once, C-u is easy to remember because u\r
+> is the first letter of unread).\r
+>\r
+> A2) Like A1, but mark only messages up to and containing point when\r
+> you leave a thread.\r
+\r
+I like A2 but would like to check exactly what you meant: would this\r
+only mark open messages (ie not collapsed messages) up to point?\r
+\r
+I also like the prefix argument for q etc idea but I have a plausible\r
+variation: ctrl-u q (etc) could say "mark 4 messages unread y/N?" so you\r
+could easily see what it would do (but default to not doing it). I am\r
+imagining not updating read/unread as the less common case. I guess if\r
+we provide functions for each case it is easy for a user to configure.\r
+\r
+(Actually is it easy for a user to configure how prefix arguments work?)\r
+\r
+The only time in my use this would do the wrong thing is if I open all\r
+messages with M-Ret\r
+\r
+I think this also simplifies the mark-read code quite substantially\r
+which is nice.\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+> In either case, I'd like an echo message when I leave the thread\r
+> telling me what happened ("Thread marked as read", "First 3 messages\r
+> marked as read; thread archived", etc.). These would blend especially\r
+> well with undo, because they would bundle together all read marking\r
+> into a single action that would make sense to undo ("Thread marked as\r
+> read [C-/ to undo]").\r
+\r
+>\r
+> Both options are highly predictable and easy to understand. They\r
+> don't lose information about which messages were unread when you\r
+> entered a thread. And they're easy to adjust (you can always -unread\r
+> a message manually and then C-u q or whatever to leave without\r
+> touching anything else).\r
+>\r
+> Quoth Mark Walters on Oct 05 at 10:19 am:\r
+>>=20\r
+>> Hello\r
+>>=20\r
+>> I agree that the unread tag does not work well. There are some instances\r
+>> which I would class as plain bugs (notmuch-show-next-message which is\r
+>> bound to N marks the new message read even if it is collapsed) and\r
+>> other instances where it is not clear what the correct behaviour should\r
+>> be.\r
+>>=20\r
+>> I have messed around a bit and there seem to be a lot of possible\r
+>> variants and I don't know whether any would have any consensus.\r
+>>=20\r
+>> One clear divide is whether we should only mark "visited messages" (ie\r
+>> ones reached using space, n,N,p,P etc in the current bindings) or we\r
+>> should also make messages seen by scrolling past (eg with page down).\r
+>>=20\r
+>> Anyway here is a list of some possibilities. In all cases I assume we do\r
+>> not mark any collapsed message read.\r
+>>=20\r
+>> 1) Mark a message read when we visit it.\r
+>> 2) Mark a message read when we visit it and the leave it with a "visit\r
+>> move" (eg n for next message)\r
+>>=20\r
+>> 3) Mark a message read if we see the start of the message in the buffer.=\r
+=20\r
+>> 4) Mark a message read if we have seen the start and end of the message\r
+>> in the buffer.\r
+>> 5) Mark a message read if we see the end of the message after seeing the\r
+>> start (rationale moving to the top of the buffer is likely "movement"\r
+>> rather than "reading")\r
+>>=20\r
+>> 6) Something based on how we leave the message: eg page down could mark\r
+>> all messages which were fully visible read, n (next-open message) could\r
+>> mark the message being left read.=20\r
+>> 7) Similar to 6) but something where read necessarily includes have seen\r
+>> the start of the message.\r
+>>=20\r
+>> I think all of these are reasonably easy to implement, and I think I\r
+>> know which I would like (something like 5 or 7) but it would be\r
+>> interesting to know if there is any general view or any view on how\r
+>> customisable this should be.\r
+>>=20\r
+>> Does anyone have any thoughts?\r
+>>=20\r
+>> Best wishes\r
+>>=20\r
+>> Mark\r
+>>=20\r
+>>=20\r
+>>=20\r
+>> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Gregor Zattler <telegraph@gmx.net> wrote:\r
+>> > Dear notmuchers,\r
+>> >\r
+>> > I had difficulties to reliably remove the "unread" tag from\r
+>> > messages. Mostly I page through threads with the space bar and\r
+>> > all is well. But when the beginning of the thread is already\r
+>> > collapsed and I "jump" in the middle of a message pressing space\r
+>> > bar does not remove the unread tag. It's only removed when\r
+>> > *entering* the message via space bar from the previous message.\r
+>> > So the last press on space bar in the previous message jumps to\r
+>> > the next message and at the same time removes its unread tag.\r
+>> >\r
+>> > This seems strange to me. I would say the unread tag should be\r
+>> > removed when leaving the message with the last press on space\r
+>> > bar, indicating that one really paged trough the whole message\r
+>> > instead of only seeing the very beginning of it.\r
+>> >\r
+>> > What=E2=80=99s the rationale to this behaviour? Am I missing somethin=\r
+g?=20=20\r
+>> >\r
+>> > Thanks for your attention, gregor\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff