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 9A210429E32
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:28:41 -0800 (PST)
\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 LfMGmlPhlXrN for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
17 Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:28:39 -0800 (PST)
\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 9365A429E31
\r
22 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:28:39 -0800 (PST)
\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 1RlU4O-0005dJ-Ht; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:28:34 +0000
\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 1RlU4O-00012e-AC; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:28:32 +0000
\r
32 From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
\r
33 To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
34 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] cli: slightly refactor "notmuch reply" address
\r
37 <9935c31d8727331b442ce266ae22469243b85f36.1326403905.git.jani@nikula.org>
\r
38 References: <cover.1326403905.git.jani@nikula.org>
\r
39 <9935c31d8727331b442ce266ae22469243b85f36.1326403905.git.jani@nikula.org>
\r
40 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+172~g60f099b (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
\r
42 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:28:31 +0000
\r
43 Message-ID: <877h0wpkkg.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: 441f4bc751d246ad2f5a4dcce9c9341a (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 * 0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
\r
64 X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean
\r
65 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
66 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
68 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
69 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
70 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
71 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
72 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
73 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
74 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
75 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
76 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
77 X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:28:41 -0000
\r
82 Two very minor nits:
\r
84 In your commit message you say
\r
86 > Add support for not adding messages at all (just scan for user from
\r
87 > address), and returning the number of messages added.
\r
89 and I think both "messages" should "recipients".
\r
91 > + * If 'user_from' is non-NULL and *user_from is NULL, the first address
\r
92 > + * encountered in 'list' that *is* the user's address will be set to *user_from.
\r
94 This reads oddly: you are setting *user_from to the first address...
\r
95 (rather than the other way round)
\r