Ah I see, the "raw: " is in the main search query but not applicable to
advanced searches where you can combine the query with dates and / or
attachment preferences. Is there any way to utilize it in the advanced
search (I would imagine "Raw:" would replace To, From, Subject, and Body-
as those are all "MATCH" query participants. (I don't use tags or notes
currently, so I'm not sure if they are contained in the MATCH phrase. Since
dates and attachments aren't in MATCH (but prior in the query) it would be
great to utilize both of them in tandem.

On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 2:38 PM Ryan Blenis <ryan.ble...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Janos,
> Thank you! The number of attachments seems to be working perfectly, the
> "raw" updates don't seem to work, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the
> implementation. There's no new "Raw" field in the advanced search, so I
> tried putting "raw: testing" in the Body search field, but the sphinx query
> showed "@body raw: testing" versus what was expected: "testing". Am I
> misunderstanding the implementation and/or where to utilize this? Thank you!
> On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 8:28 AM <s...@acts.hu> wrote:
>> On 2021-05-02 09:15, Ryan Blenis wrote:
>> > Ideally, in the dry run, I'd like to have it print "attachment: [id]"
>> > much like the emails print "id: [id]" so I can get a count of emails
>> > and associated attachment numbers, which is often required in legal
>> > queries as a the "number of items" found for certain search terms.
>> > (I'm on a slightly older version that only prints "id: [id]" for each
>> > email found, though I believe you added an email found count at the
>> > end of the dry run in a newer version, ideally in that case there
>> > would be a count of emails, and a count of attachments as well).
>> This commit gives you the total number of attachments at the beginning
>> in case of dry run:
>> https://bitbucket.org/jsuto/piler/commits/f2683962333a741c64920d959bc12e23ed797aa4
>> Let me know if it meets your expectations, or you need the attachments
>> for each
>> message instead.
>> Janos

Reply via email to