1 Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>
\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 4ECF6431FB6
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 00:00:21 -0700 (PDT)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
\r
13 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled
\r
14 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
15 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
16 with ESMTP id 4EiGc2CaktAq for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
17 Fri, 29 Jun 2012 00:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
\r
18 Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])
\r
19 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
\r
20 (No client certificate requested)
\r
21 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86FA6431FAF
\r
22 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 00:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
\r
23 Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])
\r
24 by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
\r
25 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
26 id 1SkVBb-0001ML-7X; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:00:16 +0100
\r
27 Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]
\r
29 by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)
\r
30 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
31 id 1SkVBa-0003jE-Sf; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:00:11 +0100
\r
32 From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
\r
33 To: Ethan <ethan.glasser.camp@gmail.com>
\r
34 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] modular mail stores based on URIs
\r
36 <CAOJ+Ob1bsbU2uj2F_7CZFY2t2Pu78whNETHTYfZVKPEaymGw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
\r
37 References: <1340656899-5644-1-git-send-email-ethan@betacantrips.com>
\r
38 <87bok3m70p.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
39 <CAOJ+Ob1bsbU2uj2F_7CZFY2t2Pu78whNETHTYfZVKPEaymGw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
\r
40 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.2+51~gf947b9b (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1
\r
41 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
42 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:00:05 +0100
\r
43 Message-ID: <87a9zmr4ay.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
45 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
\r
46 X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223
\r
47 X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)
\r
48 X-QM-Body-MD5: fdc0a9b93538119189081300f67c49fe (of first 20000 bytes)
\r
49 X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8
\r
50 X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -
\r
51 X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to
\r
53 spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.
\r
54 This message scored -1.8 points.
\r
55 Summary of the scoring:
\r
56 * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
\r
58 * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]
\r
59 * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
\r
60 provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)
\r
61 * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
\r
63 * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
\r
64 X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean
\r
65 Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
66 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
67 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
69 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
70 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
71 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
72 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
73 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
74 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
75 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
76 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
77 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
78 X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:00:21 -0000
\r
83 On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Ethan <ethan.glasser.camp@gmail.com> wrote:
\r
84 > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>wrote:
\r
87 >> Just a quick question: does this update the database with
\r
88 >> maildir://files URIs instead of just filenames? In other words is it
\r
89 >> safe to try out on actual mailstores?
\r
92 > It doesn't change any of the existing filenames or do anything like a
\r
93 > database "upgrade". If you run notmuch new, it should add a URI-based
\r
94 > filename to each message, but I don't think it should remove old filenames,
\r
95 > so I would expect it to be fine. But I didn't expect anyone to try it on
\r
96 > their actual mail database.
\r
98 The breakage I observed was when trying to reply to a message after
\r
99 reverting to master: on the command line I got
\r
101 Error opening /database_path/maildir:///full_path_of_file: No such file or directory
\r
103 When doing notmuch search output=files I see both possibilities.
\r
105 Surprisingly notmuch new does not seem to remove these entries.
\r
107 >> (I used it on a trial system but when I reverted to master some things
\r
108 >> seemed to stop working)
\r
110 > Sorry for breaking it :)
\r
112 It was no problem for me: it was just a test corpus of 10,000 message
\r
113 that I use for testing.
\r
115 In case anyone else has problems the following solved it for me:
\r
118 2) delete the .notmuch subdirectory of the mail store
\r
120 4) restore the tags
\r