--- /dev/null
+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 0BCA6431E82\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:10:05 -0800 (PST)\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 Md4gxPziPDwy for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:10:01 -0800 (PST)\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 E2213431E62\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:10:00 -0800 (PST)\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 1Rxm6t-0004cF-DQ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:09:59 +0000\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 1Rxm6t-0000h4-1K; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:09:55 +0000\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,\r
+ notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag\r
+In-Reply-To: <8739acrnu7.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+References: <1329296619-7463-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+ <8739acrnu7.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+206~g3b67774 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1\r
+ (i486-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:11:15 +0000\r
+Message-ID: <8739aber9o.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: 34c8f45c429839e7234d8b977f37d4c6 (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: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:10:05 -0000\r
+\r
+On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:46:56 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:\r
+> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:03:28 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:\r
+> > The current implementation of exclude-tags does not use excludes in\r
+> > notmuch-show.c (and thus not in notmuch-show.el). Thus when selecting \r
+> > a thread in the search view claiming one matched message you may get \r
+> > several matches in show all but one of which are tagged excluded.\r
+> \r
+> Hey, Mark. Thanks so much for working on this. This is a very nice\r
+> extension to Austin's work.\r
+> \r
+> > This set moves in a different direction. It returns all the results \r
+> > but marks excluded messages with a new flag \r
+> > (NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED) and lets the consumer decide what to \r
+> > do with them. For example it could start with the message closed in \r
+> > emacs show view, it could colour the headerline differently etc.\r
+> \r
+> I missed some of the previous discussion on this, but rather than add a\r
+> new flag, why not just use the existing "match" flag? If the message is\r
+> excluded, just mark "match" as "false". I think this is basically all\r
+> we really want. If the message is "excluded" include it in returned\r
+> threads, but just don't display it. This is in fact exactly what the\r
+> "match" flag is currently for, and I can't see any reason not to use it\r
+> here. We don't need to add anything new to the show output, and I\r
+> believe it will simplify this patch set considerably.\r
+\r
+I think the difficulty is that there are lots of annoying corner cases,\r
+but if there is a simpler solution that would be great!\r
+\r
+Anyway I will mention a couple of corner cases I can remember with any\r
+thoughts I have on alternative solutions.\r
+\r
+1) What should notmuch show id:deleted-message-id do? \r
+\r
+It could return the thread containing the deleted message. If it does\r
+return a thread what subject does it assign it? Possibly it could\r
+return no messages and the caller would have to call it again with\r
+--no-exclude.\r
+\r
+2) Should notmuch search return threads which match but only in excluded\r
+messages? \r
+\r
+If yes then does it sort it based on match or match-not-excluded? If the\r
+latter what happens to threads with no match-not-excluded messages? If\r
+not then does searching for id:deleted-message return no results? The\r
+caller could try with --no-exclude, but then the caller would end up\r
+returning the deleted message for search id:deleted-message but not for\r
+search id:deleted-message or id:some-other-not-deleted-message.\r
+\r
+Anyway with answers to the 2 main questions I can try thinking about\r
+simpler possibilities.\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff