--- /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 8A794431FBC\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 29 May 2012 01:37:31 -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 H3pwLgA7tjDb for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Tue, 29 May 2012 01:37:31 -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 B71B6431FAF\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 29 May 2012 01:37:30 -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 1SZHvi-00005E-Gv; Tue, 29 May 2012 09:37:27 +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 1SZHvh-00057q-Rp; Tue, 29 May 2012 09:37:26 +0100\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: Peter Wang <novalazy@gmail.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: search summary and exclusions\r
+In-Reply-To: <20120529140107.GE2347@hili.localdomain>\r
+References: <20120529000012.GF2331@hili.localdomain>\r
+ <87mx4sp79z.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+ <20120529140107.GE2347@hili.localdomain>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13+55~g992aa73 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:37:27 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <87likbmlh4.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: 91af1b5b7934ad7415a8e7c79e37dbb9 (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: Tue, 29 May 2012 08:37:31 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+Hi\r
+On Tue, 29 May 2012, Peter Wang <novalazy@gmail.com> wrote:\r
+> On Mon, 28 May 2012 10:03:35 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:\r
+>> On Mon, May 28 2012, Peter Wang <novalazy@gmail.com> wrote:\r
+>> > Exclusions don't work the way I expected with the search command and\r
+>> > --output=summary. I would like messages with excluded tags to be\r
+>> > treated as if they don't exist at all, but currently:\r
+>> >\r
+>> > * excluded messages are counted towards the "total"\r
+>> > * excluded tags are included in the "tags" set\r
+>> >\r
+>> > Are these deliberate? Especially the second point seems to conflict\r
+>> > with search --output=tags, which doesn't show excluded tags.\r
+>> \r
+>> Hi, Peter. Can you explain more what you mean? I'm not sure what your\r
+>> two bullets have to do with --output=summary. Messages are counted with\r
+>> the count subcommand, and tags are shown with search --output=tags,\r
+>> neither of which have anything to do with --output=summary, and both of\r
+>> which accept the exclude flag:\r
+>> \r
+>> notmuch count --exclude=true '*'\r
+>> notmuch search --output=tags --exclude=true '*'\r
+>> \r
+>> Maybe you can give a clearer explanation of what your issue is.\r
+>> Examples help.\r
+>\r
+> Sure. I keep draft messages in the mail store, and tag them with\r
+> 'draft', and later 'deleted'. I would like the exclusions to treat\r
+> draft and deleted messages as if they didn't exist in the store.\r
+>\r
+> % ./notmuch search --format=json --exclude=true -- thread:0000000000009598 tag:unread\r
+> [{"thread": "0000000000009598",\r
+> "timestamp": 1338231998,\r
+> "date_relative": "Today 05:06",\r
+> "matched": 1,\r
+> "total": 15,\r
+> "authors": "Mark Walters| Peter Wang",\r
+> "subject": "[PATCH v6 3/6] cli: make --entire-thread=false work for format=json.",\r
+> "tags": ["deleted", "draft", "replied", "sent", "unread"]}]\r
+>\r
+> Here is a thread I participated in. From this, my MUA displays "1/15",\r
+> suggesting that there is 1 unread message out of a total of 15. But\r
+> upon opening the thread, there are only 11 messages visible: 4 were\r
+> drafts (possibly deleted) which have been excluded. To the user, it\r
+> looks like some messages went missing.\r
+>\r
+> Therefore I would like search --output=summary --exclude=true\r
+> to report the total number of non-excluded messages. It doesn't need to\r
+> be via the "total" field; a new field would be fine.\r
+\r
+It is easy to add this to the JSON format but adding it to the text\r
+format would probably break things, and I would prefer not to have the\r
+formats diverge.\r
+\r
+Does anyone have any suggestions? Would people happy with a change in the\r
+text summary output?\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff