From aa104bb696b92c3af15f46576900c3a984ed4c3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Walters Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 10:19:59 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Re: Emacs: how to remove "unread" tag while reading emails --- e1/2133d79117f3a6f1d87d61540a541499e90351 | 143 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 143 insertions(+) create mode 100644 e1/2133d79117f3a6f1d87d61540a541499e90351 diff --git a/e1/2133d79117f3a6f1d87d61540a541499e90351 b/e1/2133d79117f3a6f1d87d61540a541499e90351 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5623a88f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/e1/2133d79117f3a6f1d87d61540a541499e90351 @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +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 ED191431FBD + for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 02:20:16 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -1.098 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 Zv9BT7C3h++J for ; + Sat, 5 Oct 2013 02:20:09 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40B9A431FAF + for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 02:20:09 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40]) + by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1VSO1p-00056f-Dd; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 10:20:03 +0100 +Received: from 93-97-24-31.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.24.31] helo=localhost) + by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1VSO1p-0004uR-4o; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 10:20:01 +0100 +From: Mark Walters +To: Gregor Zattler , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: Emacs: how to remove "unread" tag while reading emails +In-Reply-To: <87hadi0xse.fsf@boo.workgroup> +References: <87hadi0xse.fsf@boo.workgroup> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.16 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 10:19:59 +0100 +Message-ID: <87pprk3whs.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +X-Sender-Host-Address: 93.97.24.31 +X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :) +X-QM-Body-MD5: 0132fe92fad72818b3ea93df44df63ea (of first 20000 bytes) +X-SpamAssassin-Score: 0.0 +X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: / +X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to + determine if it is + spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam. + This message scored 0.0 points. Summary of the scoring: + * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail + provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com) + * 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list +X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean +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: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 09:20:17 -0000 + + +Hello + +I agree that the unread tag does not work well. There are some instances +which I would class as plain bugs (notmuch-show-next-message which is +bound to N marks the new message read even if it is collapsed) and +other instances where it is not clear what the correct behaviour should +be. + +I have messed around a bit and there seem to be a lot of possible +variants and I don't know whether any would have any consensus. + +One clear divide is whether we should only mark "visited messages" (ie +ones reached using space, n,N,p,P etc in the current bindings) or we +should also make messages seen by scrolling past (eg with page down). + +Anyway here is a list of some possibilities. In all cases I assume we do +not mark any collapsed message read. + +1) Mark a message read when we visit it. +2) Mark a message read when we visit it and the leave it with a "visit +move" (eg n for next message) + +3) Mark a message read if we see the start of the message in the buffer.=20 +4) Mark a message read if we have seen the start and end of the message +in the buffer. +5) Mark a message read if we see the end of the message after seeing the +start (rationale moving to the top of the buffer is likely "movement" +rather than "reading") + +6) Something based on how we leave the message: eg page down could mark +all messages which were fully visible read, n (next-open message) could +mark the message being left read.=20 +7) Similar to 6) but something where read necessarily includes have seen +the start of the message. + +I think all of these are reasonably easy to implement, and I think I +know which I would like (something like 5 or 7) but it would be +interesting to know if there is any general view or any view on how +customisable this should be. + +Does anyone have any thoughts? + +Best wishes + +Mark + + + +On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Gregor Zattler wrote: +> Dear notmuchers, +> +> I had difficulties to reliably remove the "unread" tag from +> messages. Mostly I page through threads with the space bar and +> all is well. But when the beginning of the thread is already +> collapsed and I "jump" in the middle of a message pressing space +> bar does not remove the unread tag. It's only removed when +> *entering* the message via space bar from the previous message. +> So the last press on space bar in the previous message jumps to +> the next message and at the same time removes its unread tag. +> +> This seems strange to me. I would say the unread tag should be +> removed when leaving the message with the last press on space +> bar, indicating that one really paged trough the whole message +> instead of only seeing the very beginning of it. +> +> What=E2=80=99s the rationale to this behaviour? Am I missing something?= +=20=20 +> +> Thanks for your attention, gregor +> _______________________________________________ +> notmuch mailing list +> notmuch@notmuchmail.org +> http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch -- 2.26.2