Re: [notmuch] [PATCH (rebased)] Handle message renames in mail spool

2009-12-16 Thread Bdale Garbee
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?

Re: [notmuch] [PATCH (rebased)] Handle message renames in mail spool

2009-12-16 Thread Michael Alan Dorman
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

Re: [notmuch] [PATCH (rebased)] Handle message renames in mail spool

2009-12-05 Thread Carl Worth
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:51:58 +0100, Marten Veldthuis mar...@veldthuis.com wrote: On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:39:50 -0800, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote: But when viewing an actual message, I'm still planning on having notmuch just return an arbitrary filename from the list of filenames

Re: [notmuch] [PATCH (rebased)] Handle message renames in mail spool

2009-12-04 Thread Carl Worth
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:55:45 -0400, da...@tethera.net wrote: P.S. do people want to be CC'd on this list, or not? We don't require subscription to the list, so I recommend CC, yes. Plus, notmuch already handles duplicate mail just fine, (in that the user only sees one copy at least). And I tag

Re: [notmuch] [PATCH (rebased)] Handle message renames in mail spool

2009-12-04 Thread Mikhail Gusarov
Twas brillig at 10:05:05 04.12.2009 UTC-08 when cwo...@cworth.org did gyre and gimble: CW Plus, notmuch already handles duplicate mail just fine, (in that the CW user only sees one copy at least). And I tag my mail differently when CW one of my addresses appears on the CC list, so I

Re: [notmuch] [PATCH (rebased)] Handle message renames in mail spool

2009-12-04 Thread Carl Worth
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:07:36 +0600, Mikhail Gusarov dotted...@dottedmag.net wrote: The only problem with Cc is that Mailman suppresses duplicate messages and hence there is no List-Id: on message. Hey, well notmuch doesn't even index the List-Id: header anyway. [*] ;-) But the above sounds

Re: [notmuch] [PATCH (rebased)] Handle message renames in mail spool

2009-12-04 Thread Michael Alan Dorman
But the above sounds like the List-Id header is unreliable enough to be useless. In my current .sieve setup, I have 93 entries for mailing lists. 87 of them use list-id[1]. 3 use list-post. 1 uses 'mailing-list', but looking at it, could be switched to list-id. 2 use x-mailing-list (blasted

Re: [notmuch] [PATCH (rebased)] Handle message renames in mail spool

2009-12-04 Thread Carl Worth
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:09:46 -0500, Michael Alan Dorman mdor...@ironicdesign.com wrote: Now, if you have an MTA that does duplicate suppression based on message-id, you probably won't see the copy of a message that went to the list if you're cc:'d on it because the direct copy (sans list-id

Re: [notmuch] [PATCH (rebased)] Handle message renames in mail spool

2009-12-04 Thread Carl Worth
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:09:46 -0500, Michael Alan Dorman mdor...@ironicdesign.com wrote: Besides, in notmuch, what's the difference going to be? It'll still be threaded the same, etc., but you'd be able to tell that this one came to you rather than through the list, no? There's one other point

Re: [notmuch] [PATCH (rebased)] Handle message renames in mail spool

2009-12-04 Thread Mikhail Gusarov
Twas brillig at 16:39:50 04.12.2009 UTC-08 when cwo...@cworth.org did gyre and gimble: CW But when viewing an actual message, I'm still planning on having CW notmuch just return an arbitrary filename from the list of CW filenames associated with that message. Does anyone see any problem CW

Re: [notmuch] [PATCH (rebased)] Handle message renames in mail spool

2009-12-03 Thread Carl Worth
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 03:15:26 +0600, Mikhail Gusarov dotted...@dottedmag.net wrote: In order to handle message renames the following changes were deemed necessary: Hi Mikhail, Thanks for contributing this patch (twice!). I think if I had gotten to it sooner, I probably would have committed it.