--- /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 51A7B431FAF\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 04:48:50 -0800 (PST)\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 fBkcerrPYrCZ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Wed, 5 Nov 2014 04:48:45 -0800 (PST)\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 3909D431FAE\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 04:48:45 -0800 (PST)\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 1Xm00w-0003bf-Ql; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:48:43 +0000\r
+Received: from 5751dfa2.skybroadband.com ([87.81.223.162] 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 1Xm00w-0001Y5-I7; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:48:42 +0000\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] cli: Introduce "notmuch address" command\r
+In-Reply-To: <87y4rpkf8n.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz>\r
+References: <1415058622-21162-1-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>\r
+ <1415058622-21162-7-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>\r
+ <87zjc72v79.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> <87y4rqliid.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz>\r
+ <87d291ao34.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> <87y4rpkf8n.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.1+86~gef5e66a (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:48:41 +0000\r
+Message-ID: <87a945ak46.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: 87.81.223.162\r
+X-QM-Geographic: According to ripencc,\r
+ this message was delivered by a machine in Britain (UK) (GB).\r
+X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)\r
+X-QM-Body-MD5: 840656755c9a387761a0738326f2a88f (of first 20000 bytes)\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Score: -0.1\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 -0.1 points.\r
+ Summary of the scoring: \r
+ * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail\r
+ provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)\r
+ * -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list\r
+X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean\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, 05 Nov 2014 12:48:50 -0000\r
+\r
+On Wed, 05 Nov 2014, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:\r
+> On Wed, Nov 05 2014, Mark Walters wrote:\r
+>> On Tue, 04 Nov 2014, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:\r
+>>> On Tue, Nov 04 2014, Mark Walters wrote:\r
+>>>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2014, Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:\r
+>>>>> This moves address-related functionality from search command to the\r
+>>>>> new address command. The implementation shares almost all code and\r
+>>>>> some command line options.\r
+>>>>>\r
+>>>>> Options --offset and --limit were intentionally not included in the\r
+>>>>> address command, because they refer to messages numbers, which users\r
+>>>>> do not see in the output. This could confuse users because, for\r
+>>>>> example, they could see more addresses in the output that what was\r
+>>>>> specified with --limit. This functionality can be correctly\r
+>>>>> reimplemented for addresses later.\r
+>>>>\r
+>>>> I am not sure about this: we already have this anomaly for output=3Dfi=\r
+les\r
+>>>> say. Also I can imagine calling notmuch address --limit=3D1000 ... to =\r
+get\r
+>>>> a bunch of recent addresses quickly and I really am wanting to look at\r
+>>>> 1000 messages, not collect 1000 addresses.\r
+>>>\r
+>>> I think that one of the reasons for having the new "address" command is\r
+>>> to have cleaner user interface. And including "anomalies" doesn't sound\r
+>>> like a way to achieve this. I think that now you can use "date:" query\r
+>>> to limit the search.\r
+>>>\r
+>>> I volunteer to implement "address --limit" properly after 0.19. This\r
+>>> should be easy.\r
+>>\r
+>> I think this depends on how you view limit: is it to limit the output\r
+>> (roughly to run "head" on the output), or is to bound the amount of work\r
+>> notmuch has to do (eg to make sure you don't get a long delay). Your\r
+>> suggestion is definitely the former, whereas I am more worried about the\r
+>> latter: limit in your definition could take an essentially unbounded\r
+>> amount of time.\r
+>\r
+> Why? If I understand you correctly, you think of limit in terms of\r
+> messages. There is 1:N mapping between messages and addresses, where\r
+> N=C2=A0>=3D=C2=A01. If I limit the number of printed addresses, I limit t=\r
+he number\r
+> of messages as well. Only if N is zero (which probably can be the case\r
+> with Bcc and --output=3Drecipients) then it can result in unbounded work\r
+> (provided you have infinite number of Bcc only messages in your\r
+> database=C2=A0:-)).\r
+\r
+Hi=20\r
+\r
+I was assuming the limit in your scheme would come after the\r
+deduplication: so notmuch would have to find "limit" distinct\r
+addresses. If the limit is applied before the deduping then I agree work\r
+is bounded (in any sane case).\r
+\r
+If limit is applied before the deduping then that seems fine.\r
+\r
+Best wishes=20\r
+\r
+Mark\r
+\r
+>\r
+> Do I miss something?\r
+>\r
+> -Michal\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff