From 508649880b11281f5eb4269586c71e109c19e265 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Olivier Berger Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:16 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Re: tag:deleted messages immediately deleted ? --- 40/5952d90f6aff61fb1b31b6bfd901d52023ce74 | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 104 insertions(+) create mode 100644 40/5952d90f6aff61fb1b31b6bfd901d52023ce74 diff --git a/40/5952d90f6aff61fb1b31b6bfd901d52023ce74 b/40/5952d90f6aff61fb1b31b6bfd901d52023ce74 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..000cae6ab --- /dev/null +++ b/40/5952d90f6aff61fb1b31b6bfd901d52023ce74 @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CCEB431FBC + for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 05:21:32 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: 0 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] + autolearn=disabled +Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id NgeuHM3LwM8b for ; + Fri, 21 Nov 2014 05:21:23 -0800 (PST) +Received: from zproxy110.enst.fr (zproxy110.enst.fr [137.194.52.33]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57878431FB6 + for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 05:21:23 -0800 (PST) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by zproxy110.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F89102091; + Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:21 +0100 (CET) +Received: from zproxy110.enst.fr ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (zproxy110.enst.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) + with ESMTP id vUYeW-xU9EC8; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:17 +0100 (CET) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by zproxy110.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5558B102098; + Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:17 +0100 (CET) +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zproxy110.enst.fr +Received: from zproxy110.enst.fr ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (zproxy110.enst.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) + with ESMTP id nj1YW3wTt3LI; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:17 +0100 (CET) +Received: from localhost (inf-11879.int-evry.fr [157.159.110.251]) + by zproxy110.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22394102031; + Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:17 +0100 (CET) +From: Olivier Berger +To: David Bremner +Subject: Re: tag:deleted messages immediately deleted ? +In-Reply-To: <87r3wx9eaq.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> +References: <877fyseuq8.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr> + <87d28ku7rt.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> + <871tp0ek8b.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr> + <87lhn8fmq9.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> + <877fypre49.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr> + <87r3wx9eaq.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:16 +0100 +Message-ID: <87d28gd703.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain +Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 +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: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:21:32 -0000 + +David Bremner writes: + +> Olivier Berger writes: +> +>> +>> So, I've tried and removed the spam tag from the exclude_tags, and +>> suddenly, the search in emacs responds with the 981... which means that +>> most of the deleted ones had the spam tag too. +>> +>> +>> So it means that if one explicitely requests an excluded tag, other +>> exclude tags still apply. Not sure this is the desirable option : maybe +>> if one exclusion is waved, then others should too ? +>> +>> What do you think ? +> +> I'm not sure. What you suggest sounds sensible enough. On the other hand +> the way it behaves now is precisely as documented; I'm not sure whether +> this is because of a design choice or ease of implementation. Maybe Mark +> can comment further on that. I guess there are even people who +> like/rely on the current functionality, since there always are ;). +> + +In any case, there has been a change in the way this worked. + +For the moment, I'm using the following saved search : + (tag:deleted or tag:spam) and tag:deleted +which will display the deleted mails. + +FWIW. + +Best regards, + +-- +Olivier BERGER +http://www-public.telecom-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 +Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF +Institut Mines-Telecom, Telecom SudParis, Evry (France) -- 2.26.2