Olivier Berger writes:
>
> In any case, there has been a change in the way this worked.
That's strange, but since it is currently working as we expect, the main
question is whether we should change how excludes work.
>
> For the moment, I'm using the following saved search :
> (tag:deleted
Olivier Berger writes:
>
> In any case, there has been a change in the way this worked.
That's strange, but since it is currently working as we expect, the main
question is whether we should change how excludes work.
>
> For the moment, I'm using the following saved search :
> (tag:deleted
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Olivier Berger
wrote:
> David Bremner writes:
>
>> Olivier Berger writes:
>>
>>>
>>> So, I've tried and removed the spam tag from the exclude_tags, and
>>> suddenly, the search in emacs responds with the 981... which means that
>>> most of the deleted ones had the spam tag
David Bremner writes:
> Olivier Berger writes:
>
>>
>> So, I've tried and removed the spam tag from the exclude_tags, and
>> suddenly, the search in emacs responds with the 981... which means that
>> most of the deleted ones had the spam tag too.
>>
>>
>> So it means that if one explicitely requ
Olivier Berger writes:
>
> So, I've tried and removed the spam tag from the exclude_tags, and
> suddenly, the search in emacs responds with the 981... which means that
> most of the deleted ones had the spam tag too.
>
>
> So it means that if one explicitely requests an excluded tag, other
> excl
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Olivier Berger wrote:
> David Bremner writes:
>
>> Olivier Berger writes:
>>
>>>
>>> So, I've tried and removed the spam tag from the exclude_tags, and
>>> suddenly, the search in emacs responds with the 981... which means that
>>> most of the deleted ones had the spam tag t
David Bremner writes:
> Olivier Berger writes:
>
>>
>> So, I've tried and removed the spam tag from the exclude_tags, and
>> suddenly, the search in emacs responds with the 981... which means that
>> most of the deleted ones had the spam tag too.
>>
>>
>> So it means that if one explicitely requ
Olivier Berger writes:
>
> So, I've tried and removed the spam tag from the exclude_tags, and
> suddenly, the search in emacs responds with the 981... which means that
> most of the deleted ones had the spam tag too.
>
>
> So it means that if one explicitely requests an excluded tag, other
> excl
Hi.
David Bremner writes:
> Olivier Berger writes:
>>
>> I'm using a local dovecot as a mail storage backend, which is in turn
>> indexed my botmuch... any particular thing related to dovecot flags
>> handling maybe (i.e. deleted tag being passed to dovecot) ?
>>
>
> Nope, we rejected synching
Hi.
David Bremner writes:
> Olivier Berger writes:
>>
>> I'm using a local dovecot as a mail storage backend, which is in turn
>> indexed my botmuch... any particular thing related to dovecot flags
>> handling maybe (i.e. deleted tag being passed to dovecot) ?
>>
>
> Nope, we rejected synching
Olivier Berger writes:
>
> I'm using a local dovecot as a mail storage backend, which is in turn
> indexed my botmuch... any particular thing related to dovecot flags
> handling maybe (i.e. deleted tag being passed to dovecot) ?
>
Nope, we rejected synching the T flag to maildirs for exactly this
Hi.
David Bremner writes:
> Olivier Berger writes:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I used to marl messages for later deletion by adding (in emacs) the
>> deleted tag, and was able to undo this if necessary by explicitely
>> searching the tag:deleted messages. A manual trigger of :
>> $ notmuch search --output=
Olivier Berger writes:
> Hi.
>
> I used to marl messages for later deletion by adding (in emacs) the
> deleted tag, and was able to undo this if necessary by explicitely
> searching the tag:deleted messages. A manual trigger of :
> $ notmuch search --output=files "tag:deleted" | xargs -l rm
> di
Hi.
I used to marl messages for later deletion by adding (in emacs) the
deleted tag, and was able to undo this if necessary by explicitely
searching the tag:deleted messages. A manual trigger of :
$ notmuch search --output=files "tag:deleted" | xargs -l rm
did the final removal.
I'm now using 0.
Olivier Berger writes:
>
> I'm using a local dovecot as a mail storage backend, which is in turn
> indexed my botmuch... any particular thing related to dovecot flags
> handling maybe (i.e. deleted tag being passed to dovecot) ?
>
Nope, we rejected synching the T flag to maildirs for exactly this
Hi.
David Bremner writes:
> Olivier Berger writes:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I used to marl messages for later deletion by adding (in emacs) the
>> deleted tag, and was able to undo this if necessary by explicitely
>> searching the tag:deleted messages. A manual trigger of :
>> $ notmuch search --output=
Olivier Berger writes:
> Hi.
>
> I used to marl messages for later deletion by adding (in emacs) the
> deleted tag, and was able to undo this if necessary by explicitely
> searching the tag:deleted messages. A manual trigger of :
> $ notmuch search --output=files "tag:deleted" | xargs -l rm
> di
Hi.
I used to marl messages for later deletion by adding (in emacs) the
deleted tag, and was able to undo this if necessary by explicitely
searching the tag:deleted messages. A manual trigger of :
$ notmuch search --output=files "tag:deleted" | xargs -l rm
did the final removal.
I'm now using 0.
18 matches
Mail list logo
