On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:16:13 -0600, Rob Browning <rlb at defaultvalue.org> wrote: > Are persistent tags required here? The original question at least, > seemed to just be asking for a visual indicator that a message has > encrypted or signed bits. So I wondered if that might be accomplished > without actual tags.
Hey, Rob. It probably could, but given that we already have infrastructure for modifying the face of lines in the search output based on tags, it therefore seems like the easiest way to achieve the indicator that Ross was interested in would also be via a tag. Any other method would probably require extra hacking of the search function, and hacking of the emacs interface to parse it and act on it. To me personally the issue was more about wanting to be able to easily find signed or encrypted messages. The easiest way to do that would be with a tag also, since that's kind of what they're for (again I can imagine some other sort of internal flag in the database, but that seems like it would be a lot more work). Given that it should be fairly easy to tag these messages during notmuch new, and that tags can be easily leveraged by existing functions, tags seem to me to be the way to go. jamie. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20110228/b27589c3/attachment.pgp>