From f00882f58ef35a82763ec2ede37f2d0e0ec24134 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Bremner Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:57:17 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Re: tag:deleted messages immediately deleted ? --- 5d/f58c9de8a24b16c72d710a93563f5d54c084ee | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+) create mode 100644 5d/f58c9de8a24b16c72d710a93563f5d54c084ee diff --git a/5d/f58c9de8a24b16c72d710a93563f5d54c084ee b/5d/f58c9de8a24b16c72d710a93563f5d54c084ee new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f7828d47f --- /dev/null +++ b/5d/f58c9de8a24b16c72d710a93563f5d54c084ee @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ +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 DF9BF431FB6 + for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:57:33 -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 XxyslhqUvq68 for ; + Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:57:25 -0800 (PST) +Received: from yantan.tethera.net (yantan.tethera.net [199.188.72.155]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF313431FAE + for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:57:24 -0800 (PST) +Received: from remotemail by yantan.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.80) + (envelope-from ) + id 1Xrj5m-0004O4-Tg; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 03:57:22 -0400 +Received: (nullmailer pid 10419 invoked by uid 1000); Fri, 21 Nov 2014 + 07:57:17 -0000 +From: David Bremner +To: Olivier Berger +Subject: Re: tag:deleted messages immediately deleted ? +In-Reply-To: <877fypre49.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> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.19+2~g32855b9 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:57:17 +0100 +Message-ID: <87r3wx9eaq.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> +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 07:57:34 -0000 + +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 ;). + +d -- 2.26.2