From f6c4909ba960cebbd274cf6d95647d01510db167 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Walters Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 12:48:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] cli: Introduce "notmuch address" command --- be/bae9ab193e461f81b860aa944a0fa728783b53 | 139 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 139 insertions(+) create mode 100644 be/bae9ab193e461f81b860aa944a0fa728783b53 diff --git a/be/bae9ab193e461f81b860aa944a0fa728783b53 b/be/bae9ab193e461f81b860aa944a0fa728783b53 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..364abe062 --- /dev/null +++ b/be/bae9ab193e461f81b860aa944a0fa728783b53 @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ +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 51A7B431FAF + for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 04:48:50 -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 fBkcerrPYrCZ for ; + Wed, 5 Nov 2014 04:48:45 -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 3909D431FAE + for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 04:48:45 -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 1Xm00w-0003bf-Ql; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:48:43 +0000 +Received: from 5751dfa2.skybroadband.com ([87.81.223.162] helo=localhost) + by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1Xm00w-0001Y5-I7; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:48:42 +0000 +From: Mark Walters +To: Michal Sojka , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] cli: Introduce "notmuch address" command +In-Reply-To: <87y4rpkf8n.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz> +References: <1415058622-21162-1-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> + <1415058622-21162-7-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz> + <87zjc72v79.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> <87y4rqliid.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz> + <87d291ao34.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> <87y4rpkf8n.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.1+86~gef5e66a (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:48:41 +0000 +Message-ID: <87a945ak46.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +X-Sender-Host-Address: 87.81.223.162 +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: 840656755c9a387761a0738326f2a88f (of first 20000 bytes) +X-SpamAssassin-Score: -0.1 +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 -0.1 points. + Summary of the scoring: + * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail + provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com) + * -0.1 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: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 12:48:50 -0000 + +On Wed, 05 Nov 2014, Michal Sojka wrote: +> On Wed, Nov 05 2014, Mark Walters wrote: +>> On Tue, 04 Nov 2014, Michal Sojka wrote: +>>> On Tue, Nov 04 2014, Mark Walters wrote: +>>>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2014, Michal Sojka wrote: +>>>>> This moves address-related functionality from search command to the +>>>>> new address command. The implementation shares almost all code and +>>>>> some command line options. +>>>>> +>>>>> Options --offset and --limit were intentionally not included in the +>>>>> address command, because they refer to messages numbers, which users +>>>>> do not see in the output. This could confuse users because, for +>>>>> example, they could see more addresses in the output that what was +>>>>> specified with --limit. This functionality can be correctly +>>>>> reimplemented for addresses later. +>>>> +>>>> I am not sure about this: we already have this anomaly for output=3Dfi= +les +>>>> say. Also I can imagine calling notmuch address --limit=3D1000 ... to = +get +>>>> a bunch of recent addresses quickly and I really am wanting to look at +>>>> 1000 messages, not collect 1000 addresses. +>>> +>>> I think that one of the reasons for having the new "address" command is +>>> to have cleaner user interface. And including "anomalies" doesn't sound +>>> like a way to achieve this. I think that now you can use "date:" query +>>> to limit the search. +>>> +>>> I volunteer to implement "address --limit" properly after 0.19. This +>>> should be easy. +>> +>> I think this depends on how you view limit: is it to limit the output +>> (roughly to run "head" on the output), or is to bound the amount of work +>> notmuch has to do (eg to make sure you don't get a long delay). Your +>> suggestion is definitely the former, whereas I am more worried about the +>> latter: limit in your definition could take an essentially unbounded +>> amount of time. +> +> Why? If I understand you correctly, you think of limit in terms of +> messages. There is 1:N mapping between messages and addresses, where +> N=C2=A0>=3D=C2=A01. If I limit the number of printed addresses, I limit t= +he number +> of messages as well. Only if N is zero (which probably can be the case +> with Bcc and --output=3Drecipients) then it can result in unbounded work +> (provided you have infinite number of Bcc only messages in your +> database=C2=A0:-)). + +Hi=20 + +I was assuming the limit in your scheme would come after the +deduplication: so notmuch would have to find "limit" distinct +addresses. If the limit is applied before the deduping then I agree work +is bounded (in any sane case). + +If limit is applied before the deduping then that seems fine. + +Best wishes=20 + +Mark + +> +> Do I miss something? +> +> -Michal -- 2.26.2