35/0505db1bc5223b34f8f8aa77fc8c5d5261908b

   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 D76AD431FB6\r
   6         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:29:15 -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: 0.01\r
  10 X-Spam-Level: \r
  11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
  12         tests=[T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=disabled\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 vKbbmnh+3QY7 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
  16         Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:29:15 -0800 (PST)\r
  17 Received: from tarap.cc.columbia.edu (tarap.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.7])\r
  18         by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0C9431FB5\r
  19         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:29:15 -0800 (PST)\r
  20 Received: from servo.finestructure.net (cpe-76-166-146-235.socal.res.rr.com\r
  21         [76.166.146.235])\r
  22         (user=jgr2110 author=jrollins@servo.finestructure.net mech=PLAIN\r
  23         bits=0)\r
  24         by tarap.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p1PLTC6T010203\r
  25         (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)\r
  26         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:29:14 -0500 (EST)\r
  27 Received: from jrollins by servo.finestructure.net with local (Exim 4.72)\r
  28         (envelope-from <jrollins@finestructure.net>) id 1Pt5Ds-0003rA-DR\r
  29         for notmuch@notmuchmail.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:29:12 -0800\r
  30 From: Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
  31 To: "notmuch\@notmuchmail.org" <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
  32 Subject: Re: Strange match to my query\r
  33 In-Reply-To: <3wd8vx3u91o.fsf@testarossa.amd.com>\r
  34 References: <3wd4o8wa7fx.fsf@testarossa.amd.com>\r
  35         <878vx4vuxi.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
  36         <3wd8vx3u91o.fsf@testarossa.amd.com>\r
  37 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.5-102-ge86ac1d (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1\r
  38         (i486-pc-linux-gnu)\r
  39 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:29:05 -0800\r
  40 Message-ID: <87fwrbhkgu.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
  41 MIME-Version: 1.0\r
  42 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";\r
  43         micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"\r
  44 X-No-Spam-Score: Local\r
  45 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.7\r
  46 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
  47 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
  48 Precedence: list\r
  49 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
  50         <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
  51 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
  52         <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
  53 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
  54 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
  55 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
  56 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
  57         <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
  58 X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:29:16 -0000\r
  59 \r
  60 --=-=-=\r
  61 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\r
  62 \r
  63 On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:57:23 -0700, Mark Anderson <MarkR.Anderson@amd.com> =\r
  64 wrote:\r
  65 > It shouldn't match anything, that's the value of finding this bug.\r
  66 >=20\r
  67 > What happened is the term counter was reset for each email address, so\r
  68 > the term list for emails in "to:" looks something like this:\r
  69 >=20\r
  70 > 0 c      K\r
  71 > 1 hello  R\r
  72 > 2 com    goodbye\r
  73 > 3        com\r
  74 >=20\r
  75 > So it matched a hello at 1 and a goodbye at 2.\r
  76 \r
  77 I see now.  I was confused about which problem you were reporting.\r
  78 \r
  79 So I am in fact still seeing this bug, although I am ostensibly using a\r
  80 version that includes the patch to fix it (db70f3f0).  Does this fix\r
  81 require rebuilding the database?\r
  82 \r
  83 jamie.\r
  84 \r
  85 --=-=-=\r
  86 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature\r
  87 \r
  88 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
  89 Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)\r
  90 \r
  91 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJNaB8iAAoJEO00zqvie6q8nbIQAJZB2ydTIFKMkUNlhPNsikoK\r
  92 Ge5X7zszSILiotq+DEuXFQVakvgnPelrngWNY1CTjCU1TZdJ89K1709lmYo3vzH1\r
  93 OKVgaNt0RbBKyB8vuhib1ksHaWr6R9+GN8CuD/5ao5q7F858GRYDGIswoIwTOc6a\r
  94 2Ll+6VUSbmltH5Klx3MOh4rancy02RTXu2Hn+F1fPdmDSl9WlJ9WDLFcY0dAKTXB\r
  95 eJfZbQh6+yHMPZGd/5axWpFa01bgPKOioEHqsdrmHoXGz/Z6mP6zIGo4AU93cGJG\r
  96 sDddflDsPx4oNGtXI+AErRHrdhbdJok7/nUCxiC8DRJTDIHEAI9wk03EzkySqaDe\r
  97 87dzXy7k6WhEPgw1UpI7ZlQzQlqggLkHSk59FKL7iV/Of+2ZjI5lQ/5Yra0NZpNl\r
  98 AWSil2F5emoqp6dqdDZFiOur3MPKIh+N2W6hep+kvNFjm1pNw0yorD61RXJ7Jmnv\r
  99 pJxuTCDi2dpdCGaLHAfjacErjEVr5sgHsdXpQB7DpDV2BvwQo25WDebAuclxUyuK\r
 100 YjvkjMz/umtjWIkcO//lmQKomlOhaIpSmB9W0xTi208SZPzjjB9RspW+3qlSKAW3\r
 101 dfz5CdMhd762jiQkjXhg9szYZfhvQflVgLw13fRADLcvT4Y2j1AFOqKh7hpm+ru2\r
 102 gzqnR1VqJEdP3M+UgNnH\r
 103 =V3lP\r
 104 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
 105 --=-=-=--\r