>>>>> "DB" == David Bremner <david at tethera.net> writes:

    DB> Todd <todd at electricoding.com> writes:
    >> I wanted to tag messages with calendar invitations, but couldn't as
    >> the information wasn't indexed.
    >> This patch allows for queries for like:
    >> Find calendar invites
    >> - contenttype:text/calendar or contenttype:applicaton/ics
    >> Find any image attachments
    >> - contenttype:image
    >> Find all patches
    >> - contenttype:text/x-patch

    DB> The main issue,  that I won't really address in this message (because 
    DB> hoping Austin finds time to comment) is upgrading the database. The 
    DB> version is that a new "database feature" needs to be created.

    I just discovered and starting using notmuch this week, so I'm not
    entirely familiar with the project yet.  I had suspected there might
    be more work :)  I'll look into the "database feature".

    My other thought was to just index the content-type with the
    attachment prefix.  This would have made the first search that I
    attempted (without reading the docs/source) work
    (e.g. attachment:text/calendar or attachment:application/ics).

    Is this preferred to adding a new search term?

    >> --- a/NEWS
    >> +++ b/NEWS
    >> @@ -15,6 +15,12 @@ keyboard shortcuts to saved searches.
    >> Command-Line Interface
    >> ----------------------

    DB> Minor point, 0.19 was released, you should start a new NEWS section for
    DB> 0.20 with date UNRELEASED

    I'll make that change.

    >> --- a/completion/notmuch-completion.bash
    >> +++ b/completion/notmuch-completion.bash

    DB> If you can without too much suffering, it would be nice to update the 
zsh completion at the same
    DB> time.

    I don't use zsh, but I'll look into what's needed.

    >> +The **contenttype:** prefix can be used to search for specific
    >> +content-types of attachments to email messages (as specified by the
    >> +sender).
    >> +

    DB> I'm not 100% sure, but I did wonder if the docs should mention MIME
    DB> somewhere, for people searching.


    >> { "attachment",          "XATTACHMENT" },
    >> +    { "contenttype",            "XCONTENTTYPE"},
    >> { "subject",             "XSUBJECT"},

    DB> I didn't work through all the details, but I did wonder if it was in
    DB> some sense redundant to be indexing contenttype and also the existing
    DB> attachement and encrypted pseudotags.  I guess this might be one of
    DB> those cases where we are stuck with the extra indexing for now, until we
    DB> sort out some query parsing issues.

    DB> d

    - Todd

Reply via email to