From: Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org>
To: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,
	Xavier Maillard <xma@gnu.org>, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] config: only set search.exclude_tags to "deleted;
 spam;	" during setup
In-Reply-To: <874nvnqrgq.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
References: <1326586654-16840-3-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu>
	<1327000744-25463-1-git-send-email-pieter@praet.org>
	<1327000744-25463-4-git-send-email-pieter@praet.org>
	<m2r4yr2xmy.fsf@kcals.intra.maillard.im>
	<874nvnqrgq.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11+101~g94bf862 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:05:27 +0100
Message-ID: <87ipk3au08.fsf@praet.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Precedence: list

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:53:41 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:14:13 +0100, Xavier Maillard <xavier@maillard.im> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:19:03 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@praet.org> wrote:
> > > If the 'search.exclude_tags' option is missing from the config file,
> > > its value is automatically set to "deleted;spam;".  Taking PoLS/DWIM
> > > into account, this should probably only happen during setup.
> > > 
> > > This patch is actually Austin Clements' work:
> > >   id:"20120117203211.GQ16740@mit.edu"
> > 
> > I do not think this is a sane default. As I told it in another post. I
> > do not expect notmuch to skew my search queries not that I specifically
> > asked.
> 
> Hi, Xavier.  Do you currently mark things as "deleted" or "spam"?  If
> not, this would have no affect on your search results.  If you do, do
> you currently expect those messages to show up in searches?  If so, why
> did you mark them as "deleted" or "spam" to begin with?
> 
> I agree with your point in principle (ie. I don't generally want my
> searches tampered with behind the scenes) but the issue here is about
> messages that have been explicitly tagged as a form of "trash".  Trash
> is by it's nature something you're trying to get rid of.  If you wanted
> to find something in the future, why would you put it in the trash in
> the first place?
> 

You definitely have a point, but then again, who are we to assume that
the terms "deleted" and "spam" have the *exact* same meaning for
everyone?  (also see id:"8739bbo0br.fsf@praet.org")

IMHO, this is one of those options that should remain disabled until
*explicitly* set by the user.

> jamie.


Peace

-- 
Pieter