From: Mark Walters Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:11:15 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=40eda0dbf3c1ce89ce4b91bb21034557d787e62b;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag --- diff --git a/d0/f12f74e364abd89badad4eca75ff9da9b84d27 b/d0/f12f74e364abd89badad4eca75ff9da9b84d27 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4fac6fd64 --- /dev/null +++ b/d0/f12f74e364abd89badad4eca75ff9da9b84d27 @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +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 0BCA6431E82 + for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:10:05 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -1.098 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled +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 Md4gxPziPDwy for ; + Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:10:01 -0800 (PST) +Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2213431E62 + for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:10:00 -0800 (PST) +Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40]) + by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1Rxm6t-0004cF-DQ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:09:59 +0000 +Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223] + helo=localhost) + by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) + (envelope-from ) + id 1Rxm6t-0000h4-1K; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:09:55 +0000 +From: Mark Walters +To: Jameson Graef Rollins , + notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 00/11] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag +In-Reply-To: <8739acrnu7.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> +References: <1329296619-7463-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> + <8739acrnu7.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+206~g3b67774 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1 + (i486-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:11:15 +0000 +Message-ID: <8739aber9o.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223 +X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :) +X-QM-Body-MD5: 34c8f45c429839e7234d8b977f37d4c6 (of first 20000 bytes) +X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8 +X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: - +X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to + determine if it is + spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam. + This message scored -1.8 points. + Summary of the scoring: + * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, + * medium trust + * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org] + * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail + provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com) + * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + * domain + * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list +X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean +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: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:10:05 -0000 + +On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:46:56 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote: +> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:03:28 +0000, Mark Walters wrote: +> > The current implementation of exclude-tags does not use excludes in +> > notmuch-show.c (and thus not in notmuch-show.el). Thus when selecting +> > a thread in the search view claiming one matched message you may get +> > several matches in show all but one of which are tagged excluded. +> +> Hey, Mark. Thanks so much for working on this. This is a very nice +> extension to Austin's work. +> +> > This set moves in a different direction. It returns all the results +> > but marks excluded messages with a new flag +> > (NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED) and lets the consumer decide what to +> > do with them. For example it could start with the message closed in +> > emacs show view, it could colour the headerline differently etc. +> +> I missed some of the previous discussion on this, but rather than add a +> new flag, why not just use the existing "match" flag? If the message is +> excluded, just mark "match" as "false". I think this is basically all +> we really want. If the message is "excluded" include it in returned +> threads, but just don't display it. This is in fact exactly what the +> "match" flag is currently for, and I can't see any reason not to use it +> here. We don't need to add anything new to the show output, and I +> believe it will simplify this patch set considerably. + +I think the difficulty is that there are lots of annoying corner cases, +but if there is a simpler solution that would be great! + +Anyway I will mention a couple of corner cases I can remember with any +thoughts I have on alternative solutions. + +1) What should notmuch show id:deleted-message-id do? + +It could return the thread containing the deleted message. If it does +return a thread what subject does it assign it? Possibly it could +return no messages and the caller would have to call it again with +--no-exclude. + +2) Should notmuch search return threads which match but only in excluded +messages? + +If yes then does it sort it based on match or match-not-excluded? If the +latter what happens to threads with no match-not-excluded messages? If +not then does searching for id:deleted-message return no results? The +caller could try with --no-exclude, but then the caller would end up +returning the deleted message for search id:deleted-message but not for +search id:deleted-message or id:some-other-not-deleted-message. + +Anyway with answers to the 2 main questions I can try thinking about +simpler possibilities. + +Best wishes + +Mark + + +