Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD63404565 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 06:20:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TWUVNRo0HBws for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 06:20:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0925C404560 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 06:20:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40]) by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjAei-0000w3-63; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:20:28 +0000 Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223] helo=localhost) by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RjAeh-0003HQ-Uv; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:20:28 +0000 From: Mark Walters To: Jani Nikula , notmuch@notmuchmail.org, david@tethera.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] notmuch reply bugfix & reply to sender only In-Reply-To: <87fwft80wg.fsf@nikula.org> References: <87hb0924hx.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> <87fwft80wg.fsf@nikula.org> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+183~g99cd7be (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:20:27 +0000 Message-ID: <87zke0diac.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223 X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :) X-QM-Body-MD5: f0fa9e5474e168145098dde15e325e8a (of first 20000 bytes) X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.7 X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: - X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to determine if it is spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam. This message scored -1.7 points. Summary of the scoring: * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, * medium trust * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org] * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com) * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay * domain * 0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:20:31 -0000 Hello I have now compared the two patch sets. They seem very similar but I think yours is a little bit nicer in all respects except I prefer my use of "g_mime_message_get_all_recipients (reply) == NULL". However, one case that is slightly less clear with my approach is what to do about reply-to-thread (or indeed any reply to more than one message). I did not add a reply-to-thread not_all option as I wasn't sure what it should do. Perhaps we could even make reply-to-one return an error if the search gives more than one message? Best wishes Mark