From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA37F431FBC for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:12:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8pq-wufSS7Mp for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:12:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from clegg.madduck.net (clegg.madduck.net [193.242.105.96]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0504D431FAE for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:12:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from lapse.rw.madduck.net (lapse.nz.madduck.net [IPv6:2001:4428:234::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "lapse.rw.madduck.net", Issuer "CAcert Class 3 Root" (verified OK)) by clegg.madduck.net (postfix) with ESMTPS id 87F011D4097 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 04:12:41 +0100 (CET) Received: by lapse.rw.madduck.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A3B0E809C; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:12:38 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:12:38 +1300 From: martin f krafft To: notmuch Message-ID: <20100108031238.GD23442@lapse.rw.madduck.net> Mail-Followup-To: notmuch MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3wdzl59mjik.fsf@testarossa.amd.com> <87my1kkzbn.fsf@marten.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87ocm64ivu.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87ljha3avx.fsf@home.veldthuis.com> <87ws0ug23f.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <1260400470-sup-5775@testarossa> X-Motto: Keep the good times rollin' X-OS: Debian GNU/Linux squeeze/sid kernel 2.6.32-trunk-686 i686 X-Spamtrap: madduck.bogus@madduck.net X-Subliminal-Message: debian/rules! User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at clegg X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: Threading X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:12:46 -0000 --fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable also sprach Carl Worth [2009.12.11.0639 +1300]: > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:21:34 -0700, Mark Anderson = wrote: > > I was wondering if there's a way in notmuch to group un-associated > > threads into a single thread. >=20 > There's certainly nothing like that in notmuch currently. >=20 > Sup had user-level functionality in the interface for stitching > messages into a single thread, and I definitely think that that > doesn't make any sense. Why doesn't it make sense? Mutt does it too, and stitching means actually (re)writing In-Reply-To and References headers. I think this is one of the most useful "productivity features" in mutt. I also think that threading is a preference thing. As Carl said in a later message: > Just this morning I sent a mail to the notmuch list, which was > a reply, (and legitimately so), but also potentially of interest > to everyone on the list, (since it was regarding a bug fix > unrelated to the original topic of the thread I was replying to). >=20 > So I was stuck on whether I should break the thread or not, (at > the sending end). I guess I could have just sent a quick "this is > pushed" reply, and independently composed a separate message > telling people about the fix. >=20 > I ended up keeping the threading intact in that case, (which > I think is right). I often thread forwarded messages (and their followups) with the thread because all my information management currently is thread-oriented. I think being able to freely break and tie threads in a trivial way is a definite plus! > But I still have a hard time justifying user operations to > manipulate threading. The whole point of threading is to make it > faster to process and read messages. But manual operations like > joining and splitting threads seem like the user just doing more > work, and that *after* having read the messages. So that seems > mostly backwards to me. Reading is one thing. Information storage and organisation is another. After a message is delivered (and read) to my mailbox, it's really mine and I can (and should be able) to affix it and integrate it into my organisational scheme any way I want, don't you think? --=20 martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ =20 "if there's anything more important than my ego, i want it caught and shot now." -- zaphod beeblebrox =20 spamtraps: madduck.bogus@madduck.net --fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="digital_signature_gpg.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/) Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREDAAYFAktGoqYACgkQIgvIgzMMSnVMDQCgtMy9gnEnA5lZnBtmqfSApfiM pJ0An2teX/uyJ9MD5YVXgz2tQLLk/teo =Qap8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR--