From abd009c26f4f964355c7ba639886fb98a4d32d84 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Walters Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:08:59 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Re: tag:deleted messages immediately deleted ? --- cc/bc385d1d164e7060e4d1e2423417e4286fec29 | 135 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 135 insertions(+) create mode 100644 cc/bc385d1d164e7060e4d1e2423417e4286fec29 diff --git a/cc/bc385d1d164e7060e4d1e2423417e4286fec29 b/cc/bc385d1d164e7060e4d1e2423417e4286fec29 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..38f8dc5f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/cc/bc385d1d164e7060e4d1e2423417e4286fec29 @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@ +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 3F746431FAE + for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 07:10:35 -0800 (PST) +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 cULzEf8tPVJo for ; + Fri, 21 Nov 2014 07:10:31 -0800 (PST) +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 D97F9431FB6 + for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 07:10:30 -0800 (PST) +Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40]) + by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1Xrpqm-0005N7-5G; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:10:24 +0000 +Received: from sc-4173-rec-r1.memphis.edu ([141.225.189.252] helo=localhost) + by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1XrpqP-0006C5-Or; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:10:19 +0000 +From: Mark Walters +To: Olivier Berger , + David Bremner +Subject: Re: tag:deleted messages immediately deleted ? +In-Reply-To: <87d28gd703.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr> +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> + <87d28gd703.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.1+86~gef5e66a (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:08:59 +0000 +Message-ID: <87zjbkwpys.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +X-Sender-Host-Address: 141.225.189.252 +X-QM-Geographic: According to ripencc, + this message was delivered by a machine in Britain (UK) (GB). +X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :) +X-QM-Body-MD5: 1c2cbafe1c8c90cf7817093762570a94 (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 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + * domain +X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean +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 15:10:35 -0000 + +On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Olivier Berger wrote: +> 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 ;). + +This was definitely a design choice (I think probably by Austin/jrollins) and I +think it makes sense: why would you want to include one include spam +messages when you are searching for deleted messages? + +A change would break my setup - not in itself a problem as I setup this +way to make sure I exercised the exclude code. I tag all my notmuch +mailing list mail tag:notmuch and have that as an excluded tag. Then +mailing list results do not clutter up results when I am doing personal +searches. + +>> +> +> In any case, there has been a change in the way this worked. + +I don't think anyone has touched this code for over two years: git blame +seems to suggest March 2012. + +> For the moment, I'm using the following saved search : +> (tag:deleted or tag:spam) and tag:deleted +> which will display the deleted mails. + +I do think it would be nice to have a clear way of turning excludes off +in the emacs frontend. Without a query parser it's not clear what the +best way to do it is: I suggested a hack which allowed --exclude=false +to be passed as part of the search. We could add a toggle to rerun a +search with exclude=false but that doesn't help much for saved searches +or manually entered searches. + +Best wishes + +Mark + -- 2.26.2