1 Return-Path: <tomi.ollila@nixu.com>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F852429E26
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:05:16 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none]
\r
13 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
14 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
15 with ESMTP id B+IMM1bsLuYG for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:05:14 -0800 (PST)
\r
17 Received: from mail-gw3.nixu.fi (mail-gw3.nixu.fi [193.209.237.7])
\r
18 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
\r
19 (No client certificate requested)
\r
20 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB27F429E25
\r
21 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:05:13 -0800 (PST)
\r
22 Received: from pps.filterd (mail-gw3 [127.0.0.1])
\r
23 by mail-gw3.nixu.fi (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id pBCG5BHG018837;
\r
24 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:05:11 +0200
\r
25 Received: from taco2.nixu.fi (taco2.nixu.fi [194.197.118.31])
\r
26 by mail-gw3.nixu.fi with ESMTP id 114cs0sv60-1
\r
27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
\r
28 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:05:11 +0200
\r
29 Received: from taco2.nixu.fi (taco2.nixu.fi [194.197.118.31])
\r
30 by taco2.nixu.fi (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id
\r
31 pBCG59CO006795; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:05:09 +0200
\r
32 From: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>
\r
33 To: Bart Bunting <bart@ursys.com.au>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
34 Subject: ANNOUNCE: nottoomuch-addresses.pl version 1.3
\r
35 In-Reply-To: <yf639cx5peg.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>
\r
36 References: <m2d3c8e22v.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi> <m2vcq0qgs6.fsf@ursys.com.au>
\r
37 <yf6wraf5sq2.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi> <yf68vmr5j9n.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>
\r
38 <m2pqg32pic.fsf@ursys.com.au> <yf662hv5h8o.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>
\r
39 <87wrabmb43.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
\r
40 <m2k46a3d6a.fsf@ursys.com.au> <yf639cx5peg.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>
\r
41 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+93~g631d290 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
\r
43 X-Face: HhBM'cA~<r"^Xv\KRN0P{vn'Y"Kd;zg_y3S[4)KSN~s?O\"QPoL
\r
44 $[Xv_BD:i/F$WiEWax}R(MPS`^UaptOGD`*/=@\1lKoVa9tnrg0TW?"r7aRtgk[F
\r
45 !)g;OY^,BjTbr)Np:%c_o'jj,Z
\r
46 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:05:09 +0200
\r
47 Message-ID: <yf6k461n5ca.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>
\r
49 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
\r
50 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.5.7110,
\r
51 1.0.211, 0.0.0000 definitions=2011-12-12_02:2011-12-12, 2011-12-12,
\r
52 1970-01-01 signatures=0
\r
53 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0
\r
54 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0
\r
55 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0
\r
57 scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1112120133
\r
58 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
59 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
61 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
62 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
63 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
64 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
65 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
66 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
67 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
68 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
69 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
70 X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:05:16 -0000
\r
72 On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:03:19 +0200, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> wrote:
\r
73 > On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:45:49 +1100, Bart Bunting <bart@ursys.com.au> wrote:
\r
79 > > The only other idea I have, which is only half formed, is that it would
\r
80 > > be nice to prioritize emails that are more important than others.
\r
82 > > I'm not sure exactly how this would work but something like:
\r
83 > > - Addresses I have actualy sent email to rather than jjust received from
\r
84 > > get a high priority in the result.
\r
85 > > - Addresses that have sent me email directly rather than just to a list
\r
86 > > get next priority.
\r
87 > > - All other emails after that.
\r
89 > > Also some sort of weighting within the groups to do with frequency of
\r
90 > > emails sent or something.
\r
92 > > Does that make sense? Would it be hard to implement?
\r
94 > Neat idea. To implement the feature into program is not too hard.
\r
95 > Somehow determine weight for each email address, store that into
\r
96 > hash (key address, value weight).
\r
97 > Then, when writing addresses file, sort first by weight and then
\r
98 > ascii order. The hash is also stored to disk (using tie()) and used
\r
99 > when address file updated.
\r
101 > Now, how to determine good (generic) rules for weights (and maybe
\r
102 > some user-defined rules as well) is the question.
\r
104 The latest version (1.3) now stores addresses in 'newest-first'
\r
105 order to the "address file" -- the fgrep printing matches will
\r
106 therefore also output the lines in this order.
\r
108 For me this seems to work pretty nicely.
\r
110 This version (1.3) relies notmuch show ... to output emails in
\r
111 this order (which it seems to do now). If this changes I'll
\r
112 have to check how to "fix" my implementation...
\r
114 The program is located at the same address:
\r
116 http://www.iki.fi/too/nottoomuch/nottoomuch-addresses.sh
\r
118 sha1sum is f9289ed4bf9034d99e390aaf3d5fcac3d815ea20 and doc page is at
\r
120 http://www.iki.fi/too/nottoomuch/nottoomuch-addresses/
\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / blob