From 5e0e404c6ea78db5f67b06badd62277690d61c87 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Olivier Berger Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:11:34 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Re: tag:deleted messages immediately deleted ? --- 4f/4444f86ad255c4a7f1c1c1eb378957aa0dcbe0 | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 113 insertions(+) create mode 100644 4f/4444f86ad255c4a7f1c1c1eb378957aa0dcbe0 diff --git a/4f/4444f86ad255c4a7f1c1c1eb378957aa0dcbe0 b/4f/4444f86ad255c4a7f1c1c1eb378957aa0dcbe0 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a286f5c8f --- /dev/null +++ b/4f/4444f86ad255c4a7f1c1c1eb378957aa0dcbe0 @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ +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 12FB7431FB6 + for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:11:56 -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 LNIHDCAqZMUU for ; + Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:11:45 -0800 (PST) +Received: from zproxy120.enst.fr (zproxy120.enst.fr [137.194.52.34]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DDE431FAE + for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:11:45 -0800 (PST) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by zproxy120.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00DB100ED0; + Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:11:39 +0100 (CET) +Received: from zproxy120.enst.fr ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (zproxy120.enst.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) + with ESMTP id DuIWCsAkP5Nt; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:11:35 +0100 (CET) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by zproxy120.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C795B100EEF; + Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:11:35 +0100 (CET) +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zproxy120.enst.fr +Received: from zproxy120.enst.fr ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (zproxy120.enst.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) + with ESMTP id FVc5iz3luLpY; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:11:35 +0100 (CET) +Received: from localhost (inf-11879.int-evry.fr [157.159.110.251]) + by zproxy120.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6F9A100ED0; + Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:11:35 +0100 (CET) +From: Olivier Berger +To: David Bremner +Subject: Re: tag:deleted messages immediately deleted ? +In-Reply-To: <87lhn8fmq9.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> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:11:34 +0100 +Message-ID: <877fypre49.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: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:11:56 -0000 + +Hi. + +David Bremner writes: + +> Olivier Berger writes: +>> +>> I'm using a local dovecot as a mail storage backend, which is in turn +>> indexed my botmuch... any particular thing related to dovecot flags +>> handling maybe (i.e. deleted tag being passed to dovecot) ? +>> +> +> Nope, we rejected synching the T flag to maildirs for exactly this +> reason. I wonder if you have multiple excluded tags on these messages +> somehow. If you run "notmuch search --exclude=false tag:deleted" do you +> get some output? If so, what tags do these messages have? +> + +Yes, I get tons of mails (981 of them ;). + +Some only seem to have the deleted tag : + + $ notmuch search --exclude=false tag:deleted | grep '(deleted)' | wc -l + 4 + +And it seems I can now find some 21 messages by searching for the +tag:deleted query in emacs :-/ + +I've checked my .notmuch-config and it contains : + + [search] + exclude_tags=deleted;spam; + +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 ? + +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