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>

Reply via email to