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 EB49140BC3A for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:31:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 yLQl-LBoc4FX for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f181.google.com (mail-gx0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7312640BC38 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so156545gxk.26 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:31:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:jabber-id:openpgp:x-url:user-agent; bh=q+O3VVvIo9/erL/SxB8HjAH0XmkeAczmybBMwgAl7oM=; b=gmwFBaHkjt7V70YqtHXwNw0GuzWwVfSaMilfhsfPJdSObHHtYpfMY6x3TtK4Htsajt gcRfEiEN0tEAV+Qa4A4XYIc2/1ksqXLYu3/kv89sWZaz0s89oBENpRYpsTRIfs3kRA2o Big5AaPsxVI9q2aeMnoQwHS3zcvm1BGj/GFQ4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:jabber-id:openpgp :x-url:user-agent; b=vg7y8FC9edGXgoSwddeKrLL0AOmtLjtwohJlmOLUV2TiZUCW7C+iEG6HFHJi+3Rtt/ d0AGU7NeJB6Q0ya1owqCNmFqOTNeftZsgbOnpSERkd1VpyFMaucoGAKQW/mjzfENOwaS 3xQfR8+xMj4BJIr0613RqSY3+c5g9QT2S7QUI= Received: by 10.150.180.15 with SMTP id c15mr21232105ybf.449.1281551501406; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (dsl-173-248-208-49.acanac.net [173.248.208.49]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u42sm438611yba.0.2010.08.11.11.31.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Stephen Paul Weber Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:31:37 -0500 From: Stephen Paul Weber To: Michal Sojka Subject: Re: A problem and a suggestion Message-ID: <20100811183137.GB1546@singpolyma-svelti> References: <20100806170410.GA1526@singpolyma-svelti> <87d3ttfbym.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-action=pgp-signed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87d3ttfbym.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz> Jabber-ID: singpolyma@gmail.com OpenPGP: id=CE519CDE; url=https://singpolyma.net/public.asc X-URL: https://singpolyma.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org 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: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:32:00 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Somebody claiming to be Michal Sojka wrote: > On Fri, 06 Aug 2010, Stephen Paul Weber wrote: > > Anyway. I installed notmuch a few days ago (0.1), ran the setup, ran > > notmuch new and i said it found 30000+ files, but no new mail? No searches > > return any results. What am I doing wrong? > > I guess you have your mails in a wrong fomrat. Do you see "Note: > Ignoring non-mail file" messages during notmuch new? You may also try > notmuch new --verbose. Hmm. I'm pointing it at a maildir. I deleted the .notmuch folder in the maildir and ran notmuch new --verbose with the following result: $ notmuch new --verbose Found 33065 total files (that's not much mail). No new mail. and searches turn up no results. > > I gather by other threads on the list archives that editing a message > > does not make it "new"? So notmuch just gets whatever the first > > version of the message contents it sees is? And if the file gets > > renamed (by mutt for example, when marked as read) the filename stored > > by notmuch would then be wrong? > > Yes. AFAIK notmuch assumes that messages are immutable and when you edit > the message, notmuch doesn't re-index it. Ok, so edited headers are ignored. > Notmuch new code is able to > detect renames so if you rename the file, the filename in the database > is wrong only until you run notmuch new again. Oh, cool. Good. > > This would be especially useful if notmuch re-indexed a message when I > > edit this header. > > I'm not sure how hard it would be to implement this and what would be > the performance implications. You should store modification time of a > message in the database and re-index the file when the mtime on disk in > newer than in the database. Right. An mtime-based solution would make sense to me. That should (I would think) have minor performance implications unless you edit a lot of your mail often. - -- Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma See for how I prefer to be contacted edition right joseph -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJMYuyJAAoJENEcKRHOUZzen1cP/0kgDgQQDR3nDn7mnw5t6Pfh 8IGODVtxSRJ+vFfrNg3gqUDHmHdphXAlX3xjvjI3eNLDW7PqmqUuQw4fzxQ6/cEQ FBOlMq8zXze+Cus3baqYLIYltQaJRItsg4/5B4TjJXYC0r5W4Vt76wQNuBjAdDp5 EnEEpJEZypBlNyo6L33lsnkOQXnKPW/YPay5AT7FPYPIBv1BtyomJYAA6bUXEttD BhcDoq+QZyOUKmShF9p1PtpAC7fKo2AtCALIK0CTClPWQidsLR/LYFxx1UaNvSjR vG2S2H/FlyAzgYj+rgGoH/3rFLnSFjZE6rgpZsXnfQf2/KHnuzL0GSFcI0lsYlJR Fyv/V7iPIYCkf0xG1deeoZ1Y0/qNidvzBwdJ9o6uaon/SINnvBegNksNhnaTS2Gb B1J8/IHLfmOiswucz/s5lLkZL78/bJoyHRwRdARTwjHpP6ylMl+ZB7RUVILuNqc6 c0F52V3S7Jt3eyEPFM7kuFfXsoaQZSe1kwQLyaY+RjRaoLwiv90vdjpylJa0y9qC NSu8ZTNI5rIhfZuAgDUOexWn2zwiqV6r+hJIsFe7KBjVhDS9N7TE4hekNVVOz40y KDLgm9oves8H0q6ynI29uraw8nD7XJqu+O8YPwu88N0+Q96qHPPWff1iISTwKTON uFXOonuUlLm/TBn+azEJ =dX/y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----