> I'd had much better luck matching List-Id than matching addresses in
> recent years. YMMV.
As long as you're not CC:d, you're fine. If you're CC:'d, well, Mailman
is more brain-dead than you could imagine.
Mike.
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 06:01 +0600, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
> Twas brillig at 16:51:17 16.12.2009 UTC-07 when bdale at gag.com did gyre and
> gimble:
>
> >> But the above sounds like the List-Id header is unreliable enough to
> >> be useless.
>
> BG> FWIW, that does not match my experience.
>
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 10:35 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> But the above sounds like the List-Id header is unreliable enough to be
> useless.
FWIW, that does not match my experience.
> Any reason not to just use something like
> to:notmuch at notmuchmail to match messages sent to a list like this
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:18:16 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> I agree that the labels-in-headers approach has some nice advantages. I
> haven't thought through merging of tag lists, but maybe that is no worse
> than other approaches. One thing that worries me a bit is that notmuch
> updates tags
ool" even mean?
-Carl
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20091216/82702209/attachment.pgp>
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:54:11 -0500, Alec Berryman wrote:
> There are security concerns (need to strip incoming messages of tags so
> no one tags your mail for you), privacy concerns (if you forward the
> entire message as an attachment, may want to strip tags), and space
> concerns (how many
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:18:16 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
I agree that the labels-in-headers approach has some nice advantages. I
haven't thought through merging of tag lists, but maybe that is no worse
than other approaches. One thing that worries me a bit is that notmuch
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:23:59 -0400, David Bremner brem...@unb.ca wrote:
I then try to visit these threads on a different machine, but of course
that thread id doesn't exist there, since the database was reindexed and
tags reimported.
Ah, good point.
I've wanted reproducible thread IDs also
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 10:35 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
But the above sounds like the List-Id header is unreliable enough to be
useless.
FWIW, that does not match my experience.
Any reason not to just use something like
to:notm...@notmuchmail to match messages sent to a list like this one?
I'd had much better luck matching List-Id than matching addresses in
recent years. YMMV.
As long as you're not CC:d, you're fine. If you're CC:'d, well, Mailman
is more brain-dead than you could imagine.
Mike.
___
notmuch mailing list
10 matches
Mail list logo
