--- /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 ACC22431FB6\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 30 May 2012 00:49:34 -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 0eX3sFUf2ZWX for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Wed, 30 May 2012 00:49:33 -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 14C57431FAF\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 30 May 2012 00:49:33 -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 1SZdeq-0007dR-SF; Wed, 30 May 2012 08:49:29 +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 1SZdeq-00033C-JI; Wed, 30 May 2012 08:49:28 +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: <20120530130733.GC2332@hili.localdomain>\r
+References: <20120529000012.GF2331@hili.localdomain>\r
+ <87mx4sp79z.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+ <20120529140107.GE2347@hili.localdomain>\r
+ <87fwajnibz.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+ <20120530130733.GC2332@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: Wed, 30 May 2012 08:49:31 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <878vgam7lg.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: 26f30eab317eac93c3b77d83ce719d55 (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, 30 May 2012 07:49:34 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+On Wed, 30 May 2012, Peter Wang <novalazy@gmail.com> wrote:\r
+> On Tue, 29 May 2012 08:00:00 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:\r
+>> On Mon, May 28 2012, Peter Wang <novalazy@gmail.com> wrote:\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
+>> What you have pasted above is --output=json, not --output=summary. The\r
+>> formats are quite different. What are you asking for a change in?\r
+>\r
+> --output=summary is the default. --format=json only changes the\r
+> surface syntax.\r
+>\r
+> % ./notmuch search --output=summary --exclude=true -- thread:0000000000009598 tag:unread\r
+> thread:0000000000009598 Yest. 05:06 [1/15] Mark Walters| Peter Wang; [PATCH v6 3/6] cli: make --entire-thread=false work for format=json. (deleted draft replied sent unread)\r
+>\r
+>> But regardless, I don't think I would like to see the changes you\r
+>> suggest. I would like for the thread total to list the total number of\r
+>> messages in the thread, regardless whether they're excluded or not.\r
+>> Same for the tags. I think I want to continue to see if excluded\r
+>> messages are in a returned thread. The desire to hide the excluded\r
+>> messages in the output is why they're marked as hidden/not visible.\r
+>> \r
+>> Think about the excludes as acting on the search itself, and less on the\r
+>> output. We exclude messages from search, but if they show up in a\r
+>> returned thread we at least acknowledge that they're there.\r
+>\r
+> Understood; it's a two-phase process, and I wasn't making the\r
+> distinction. If it is the expected and useful behaviour, so be it.\r
+>\r
+> Maybe there is room for another keyword under --exclude?\r
+\r
+Yes that might be the best way to go. Something like --exclude=all and\r
+then excluded messages never appear anywhere?\r
+\r
+I think it should be easy: I will try to send a patch tonight.\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff