Re: [notmuch] Idea for storing tags

2010-01-14 Thread Carl Worth
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:04:21 +1300, martin f krafft madd...@madduck.net wrote: You might have marked a message 'read' on one machine and if the two get out of sync on another machine, you might have the same message unread there. That's a different issue though. With two databases there's

Re: [notmuch] Idea for storing tags

2010-01-14 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org [2010.01.15.1124 +1300]: You might have marked a message 'read' on one machine and if the two get out of sync on another machine, you might have the same message unread there. That's a different issue though. With two databases there's clearly the

Re: [notmuch] Idea for storing tags

2010-01-13 Thread Carl Worth
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:39:14 -0500, Scott Morrison sm...@indev.ca wrote: Maybe a better approach would be content addressing (see below). Content hashing -- good Idea ( not something that has hit me before) -- better than Message-Id as I believe there are still some MUA /MTAs that allow