Re: [PATCH 0/3] Control notmuch show output

diff --git a/a3/384bfedd9fc3b0fb6df32d6f0c8d2b9ae9a7d4 b/a3/384bfedd9fc3b0fb6df32d6f0c8d2b9ae9a7d4
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..d79af7c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/a3/384bfedd9fc3b0fb6df32d6f0c8d2b9ae9a7d4
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC9B431FC3\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:49:36 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -1.098\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,\r
+       NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+       with ESMTP id r84PW5gzBrqD for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:49:35 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])\r
+       (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))\r
+       (No client certificate requested)\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5585B431FBC\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:49:35 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])\r
+       by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)\r
+       (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+       id 1Sq5X9-00029F-9V; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 17:49:31 +0100\r
+Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]\r
+       helo=localhost)\r
+       by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)\r
+       (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+       id 1Sq5X9-0007I6-0W; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 17:49:31 +0100\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Control notmuch show output\r
+In-Reply-To: <1341673978-6094-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+References: <1341673978-6094-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.2+90~g84fa1ef (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 17:49:29 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <87r4sei8yu.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223\r
+X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record.  :)\r
+X-QM-Body-MD5: 20ebca354a98a0c1b0e9597358cbf8fd (of first 20000 bytes)\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8\r
+X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to\r
+       determine if it is\r
+       spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.\r
+       This message scored -1.8 points.\r
+       Summary of the scoring: \r
+       * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,\r
+       *      medium trust\r
+       *      [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]\r
+       * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail\r
+       provider *      (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)\r
+       * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay\r
+       *      domain\r
+       *  0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list\r
+X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+       <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:49:36 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+I wonder if we need as many options as this: I implemented a simpler set\r
+of possibilities: \r
+no-body:          just from, to, cc, subject and date headers and no bodies\r
+brief:            from, to, cc, subject and date header with bodies\r
+most:             all headers except "received" with bodies\r
+all:              all headers and bodies\r
+\r
+I then benchmarked this by timing the command line run. I saved the\r
+output and ran it in a simple emacs lisp script which just ran (and\r
+timed) json-read on the output. I also noted the size of the data.\r
+\r
+All were done on the query \r
+\r
+notmuch show --format=json <relevant output> tag:notmuch \r
+\r
+(which contains 11 775 messages in 1 672 threads)\r
+\r
+             Cli time      JSON time      Data MB\r
+no-body:      10.0            7               7    \r
+brief:        11.9           55              70\r
+most:         12.6           73              91          \r
+all:          13.0           85             107\r
+\r
+(note the cli was actually run on a different (slower) machine than the\r
+json)\r
+\r
+So do we want all sorts of header options, or would the above be\r
+sufficient? Note that for notmuch show itself the difference is probably\r
+negligible in most cases as the data size is *much* smaller. The\r
+datasize may be significant for some uses though.\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
+\r