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 C96CC431FBD for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 11:38:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.681 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.681 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.317, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 RDQ3bfZXVKQf for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 11:38:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [204.13.164.18]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E06431FAE for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 11:38:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: micah@mx1.riseup.net) with ESMTPSA id 6266818C227 Received: by lillypad (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C9B862CC173; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:39:22 -0500 (EST) From: micah anderson To: Jameson Graef Rollins , Marten Veldthuis , Notmuch Mail In-Reply-To: <871vgzwp26.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> References: <878wb7wsnt.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <87zl3nr3vc.fsf@marten.rgoc.rug.nl> <871vgzwp26.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:39:22 -0500 Message-ID: <87vdebcw0l.fsf@lillypad.riseup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at mx1 X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [notmuch] loss of duplicate messages 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, 05 Feb 2010 19:38:59 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:49:21 -0500, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:=20 > A policy of only returning one is going to be problematic for folks who > want or expect to see the other. And in fact think I want to see both. > I have both, and I've asked notmuch to index both, so why shouldn't it > return both in a search? Welcome to how gmail does it. When they first hit the scene, as an operator of a large mailing list service, I was *constantly* being bugged with support issues from people who were expecting this very behavior, "I sent a message to the list, but I never got it, did it get posted to the list?!". Soon I found out that gmail did exactly what you are reporting notmuch as doing. The frightening thing is that over the last few years of gmail's existence, those complaints and support issues have totally gone away. Does that mean that gmail has trained people to no longer expect this behavior? micah --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJLbHPqAAoJEIy/mjIoYaeQhVcP/0Y0a8r7zu5hVNMIM69GiF3G hqZ/ErwC4yE++U5MevyggYJnxxVTaeMo7s9kmR27azaqO0XdJHAfUvXrkhk8PZ/M XjUF57plOUoqiULsflsbzawjyb9XUWtzVVq7j9Q0hxOi3oGmXLEj/4BMUK/2uds8 sSG2wqYF2wkWk072NuQey1+EJ6jY49QFtk9mZ4Vf69mCrstcQ/x6hwAjjQOBGDZC EHWMzTGJpkVxh4m+CeeQPKqsnhSBFt5mTX70WmqnqNQZP4A4mrtflJTBbRXnmc/W phl2H8xvKjptKaNfxX4vLfz36OYeTAtnrpPYPqivqbxQWhKnzo/D9Poy+awTGu4A tWw7l1hVAa+HI6r1oHA+sepiiMB9io3s/WYuAWwu0iB7heyebvLlYUkH4KROAq3l vMlMTMe9TKwICSHjYjdcoBqdGUWcOUte/lB4gOUL2Zsz6QwefKHJ8k6BmdFPNxqk SU+ArG/QMl5i2kAOu5XFSi/zaHKfrsymbgU3lA0gVeJWIn1RVLZ7qVkB6gHs1HC+ 5YNhCRUWXoRjVND5xlfRmnv9TDc20xS+Lpe1Li8hANALi39YBFsLy2BUdtyOmPWb 0BZZum+5K4I5m7nFo2mHzyNqVL5nmQmpUxyrsLRk+O23/fWmcN4VPUObfLbOUPhq 7edSYy6WEjCHccaVXwZV =gTMN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--