[PATCH v2 12/14] cli/reply: pass internet address list to munge detect
[notmuch-archives.git] / 17 / c77eaa6b4e4b7643631babaa72229505012972
1 Return-Path: <jrollins@finestructure.net>\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 2403B431FBC\r
6         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue,  2 Feb 2010 10:22:57 -0800 (PST)\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
8 X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
9 X-Spam-Score: -3.453\r
10 X-Spam-Level: \r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.453 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.546,\r
12         BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] autolearn=ham\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 onvAGWdCwKFB for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
16         Tue,  2 Feb 2010 10:22:56 -0800 (PST)\r
17 Received: from brinza.cc.columbia.edu (brinza.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.8])\r
18         by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF28431FAE\r
19         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue,  2 Feb 2010 10:22:56 -0800 (PST)\r
20 Received: from servo.finestructure.net (geco.phys.columbia.edu\r
21         [128.59.170.159])\r
22         (user=jgr2110 author=jrollins@finestructure.net mech=PLAIN bits=0)\r
23         by brinza.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o12IMWoO002964\r
24         (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);\r
25         Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:22:35 -0500 (EST)\r
26 Received: from jrollins by servo.finestructure.net with local (Exim 4.71)\r
27         (envelope-from <jrollins@finestructure.net>)\r
28         id 1NcNOS-0000eN-3y; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:22:32 -0500\r
29 From: Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
30 To: Arvid Picciani <aep@exys.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
31 In-Reply-To: <4B686569.7030408@exys.org>\r
32 References: <201001291049.21048.sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>\r
33         <1265122868-12133-1-git-send-email-sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>\r
34         <87eil3ehjh.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <4B686569.7030408@exys.org>\r
35 Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:22:29 -0500\r
36 Message-ID: <873a1jebve.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
37 MIME-Version: 1.0\r
38 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";\r
39         micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"\r
40 X-No-Spam-Score: Local\r
41 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.8\r
42 Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCHv2] Preserve folder information when indexing\r
43 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
44 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
45 Precedence: list\r
46 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
47         <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
48 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
49         <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
50 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
51 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
52 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
53 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
54         <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
55 X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:22:57 -0000\r
56 \r
57 --=-=-=\r
58 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\r
59 \r
60 On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:48:25 +0100, Arvid Picciani <aep@exys.org> wrote:\r
61 > On Tue,  2 Feb 2010 16:01:08 +0100, Michal Sojka<sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>=20\r
62 > wrote:\r
63 > unfortunately it doesnt do anything here :/\r
64 > i rebuilt the entire index, but no folder: field is added.\r
65 > can anyone who got it working tell me their directory layout?\r
66 > mine would be something like:\r
67 \r
68 What search terms are you using?  You shouldn't consider the cur/new/tmp\r
69 maildir subdirectories in the folder naming.  Those are fundamental\r
70 parts of maildirs.  You would want to look at the maildir name itself.\r
71 \r
72 I'm starting to think that maybe the folder: field is not the right way\r
73 to do this, though.  What if a message moves?  Only new mails are having\r
74 this field modified, so if messages are moved that field is not\r
75 modified, and since it's being added as part of the message (like\r
76 "subject:") it's not modifiable.  It also can't be added down the line\r
77 to messages that don't already have it.  I'm going back to my original\r
78 suggestion, which was that the configuration should state tag that\r
79 should be added for messages in certain folders.\r
80 \r
81 jamie.\r
82 \r
83 --=-=-=\r
84 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature\r
85 \r
86 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
87 Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)\r
88 \r
89 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJLaG1lAAoJEO00zqvie6q8ut8QALknUDQoV5cpGih0TQLlF46S\r
90 hd9/Fm4tOWsayz4HSr9MfzcRaIXU46CIPI37+BC9q4itSdy9SPniJOawBDcZ88LW\r
91 u1Dz68UH7xosVpQ+FzaepqtEtzjvPadpCff8Ogw+yt/0ZDrdZlnnYJg7q48NvsU6\r
92 oxj1rhGWuhbghNhNRBNPHjjRRoLMHcIbbh7lKA6RotYLSIN0CfDq/uhj9VFDklG2\r
93 N0phxF9PiO8nQl4zB/tZH4DHbr7692SDCHqkRLAeXvKv7HIxAr0xQqBhV7mgMaxy\r
94 xcNsuGHNjCmUGduKKEVNRZ5JbIQb+JImnjwFir9QYa5orC4qmHJ5VlB+lul5Ue/4\r
95 u/LDOwP4nq/XlVk7wrh+USjNupSt9GebYzOsRlC9bjvmzuQnl6XlqJv7ysE56efV\r
96 KPr5e+Ed4Ld5/dE4JZbiETvZeTyK/fg78Il86R+LIwddpsL+5qMWwtG3r+E4uIbX\r
97 J3RaxFAyypv7MtquDTGsVd6xnAUED3TNaDDqd+VQ/J58XWqItcUYC40ZvI7Q4ZLF\r
98 owg7oAHQVbUOBZHJ1mIHtPwtwbZwabSTzgt6oT0lN0sU0JhFxyhtbZfJRO5H81lC\r
99 XUuoyE9XRp9bEtVNqq0KqJcC3GGD15OVYkSkGMlMc1jkbVstvrwBK8mREpwf9OoN\r
100 Djx5eeLMyNJyC68MCpEK\r
101 =Q8lH\r
102 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
103 --=-=-=--\r