From 3401ae86df603e94d227ac6071a312abc3c7f76c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Xu Wang Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:52:13 +2000 Subject: [PATCH] Re: Possible some threads are not complete due to bug? --- 73/fa97f20b5c218fb388f1573693e9ff47519cef | 123 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 123 insertions(+) create mode 100644 73/fa97f20b5c218fb388f1573693e9ff47519cef diff --git a/73/fa97f20b5c218fb388f1573693e9ff47519cef b/73/fa97f20b5c218fb388f1573693e9ff47519cef new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9b6e6d227 --- /dev/null +++ b/73/fa97f20b5c218fb388f1573693e9ff47519cef @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A78B6DE025E + for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 20:52:17 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.135 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[AWL=-0.309, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, + DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, + FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, + RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_SBL=0.644, + URIBL_SBL_A=0.1] autolearn=disabled +Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id bNZUHMc2Ng2c for ; + Sun, 4 Oct 2015 20:52:15 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com (mail-ob0-f170.google.com + [209.85.214.170]) + by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28C8E6DE0173 + for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 20:52:15 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by obbbh8 with SMTP id bh8so119477357obb.0 + for ; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 20:52:13 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to + :cc:content-type; + bh=dTFbIN7FvbRAnWvfWCxg6/UvF/F6fOSNqGO+YbhkKiU=; + b=WErtSfnGgeT7FXKFOtjtLuGdfx4NpLk/EBRAUd+GbcgyyMKz1t5DhsIYhdRy/XDEw+ + RKV790G4WiLX3zvuyllnE3DKYrLgFim7fP6wfLk01V9mhHCNp7lofkLG39Tx4352HCXH + DNyHbRyP85PSEgki9LWPE8BaEbD5t/RUODNVI9zQOzsR4105V3czVDzcOQhk9/oBq0PJ + oMGBB0Vfae/b4VuFHyxXq1IWysYiuqwrFOOux3A3HDKbT0yQQ+9mu4Uk5K04TZq8t4fW + iRTdfhAr8Zup4kbl8qlyvrghLL+Lae02SqFE64cn5GdfdLTEGaGh7RGi7HLJcG+tslOK + qAFA== +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.182.138.40 with SMTP id qn8mr16761131obb.78.1444017133805; + Sun, 04 Oct 2015 20:52:13 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.202.212.204 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 20:52:13 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <87oage9a0a.fsf@zancas.localnet> +References: + + <87fv2a4ctt.fsf@zancas.localnet> + + <87zj0c3gei.fsf@zancas.localnet> + + <87oage9a0a.fsf@zancas.localnet> +Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 23:52:13 -0400 +Message-ID: + +Subject: Re: Possible some threads are not complete due to bug? +From: Xu Wang +To: David Bremner +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 03:52:17 -0000 + +On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 6:57 AM, David Bremner wrote: +> Xu Wang writes: +> +>> +>> $ notmuch search --output=threads "id:MYMSGID" +>> thread:000000000000a125 +>> $ notmuch search --output=messages "thread:000000000000a125" +>> id:MYMSGID +>> $ +>> # I know that MYMSGIDREPLY did respond to that message. I have it in +>> my mutt mailbox and it shows the down-right arrow signifying this. I +>> inspect the headers and there is indeed a header in MYMSGIDREPLY that +>> says "In-Reply-To: ". I then do... +>> $ notmuch search --output=threads "id:MYMSGIDREPLY" +>> thread:000000000000c125 +>> $ notmuch search --output=messages "thread:000000000000c125" +>> id:MYMSGIDREPLY +>> $ +> +> If the thread-id's are accurate, then it looks like the two messages are +> not in the same thread according to notmuch (it's easy to be fooled +> because the thread-ids are so similar). I can't really explain how +> those messages might have ended up in different threads. +> +> - One potential issue is that if message ids are extra long or badly +> formed, then notmuch might make up a new message id. In that case your +> thread-id search wouldn't work at all. +> +> - If there are actually multiple (unrelated) files with message-id +> MYMSGIDREPLY, then the indexed one might not have the in-reply-to +> header. But in this case you could tell by +> +> notmuch show id:MYMSGIDREPLY +> +> and/or +> +> notmuch search --output=files id:MSGIDREPLY +> +> In order for the thread-ids to change when you run "notmuch new", I +> _think_ that there has to be a third message in the thread disovered. +> +> So it's a mystery. If it happens again with public messages, it would be +> worth sharing the messages (as attachements) with the list, just in case +> there is something in the headers that explains it. +> + +OK I will be careful to document if I find a repeatable example and +share with the list. I would like to help in any possible way that I +am capable. + +Kind regards, + +Xu -- 2.26.2