On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:37:57 -0500, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:41:41 +1300, martin f krafft
> wrote:
> > also sprach David Bremner [2010.02.04.0924 +1300]:
> > > > PS: speaking of prefixes, how about remving the subject prefix of
> > > > this list in general? ;)
> > >
> > >
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:37:57 -0500, Jameson Rollins
wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:41:41 +1300, martin f krafft
> wrote:
> > also sprach David Bremner [2010.02.04.0924 +1300]:
> > > > PS: speaking of prefixes, how about remving the subject prefix of
> > > > this list in general? ;)
> > >
> >
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:37:57 -0500, Jameson Rollins wrote:
>
> I think I might agree with Martin. The subject prefix doesn't really
> seem necessary with notmuch, considering that for the following two
> searches:
>
> notmuch search to:notmuch at notmuchmail.org
> notmuch search subject:[notmuc
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:41:41 +1300, martin f krafft
wrote:
> also sprach David Bremner [2010.02.04.0924 +1300]:
> > > PS: speaking of prefixes, how about remving the subject prefix of
> > > this list in general? ;)
> >
> > I used to agree, but in notmuch, I actually find it convenient to have
>
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:37:57 -0500, Jameson Rollins
wrote:
>
> I think I might agree with Martin. The subject prefix doesn't really
> seem necessary with notmuch, considering that for the following two
> searches:
>
> notmuch search to:notmuch@notmuchmail.org
> notmuch search subject:[notmuch]
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:41:41 +1300, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach David Bremner [2010.02.04.0924 +1300]:
> > > PS: speaking of prefixes, how about remving the subject prefix of
> > > this list in general? ;)
> >
> > I used to agree, but in notmuch, I actually find it convenient to have
> >
