From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C546DE01E6 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:49:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.34 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.34 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.240, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WbOIsJ18Oe0l for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:49:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gaspard.ninja (grym.ekleog.org [94.23.42.210]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88C276DE01D8 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gaspard.ninja (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 589b2f73; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:49:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=leo.gaspard.io; h= from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= grym-20170528; bh=BKK/cSLru14W539bcJOFaUwbwXI=; b=g9gLXacvam7tZk E3YDAnqHt+WjgfttOz7SCOrP5o4399q1nHCfj7nw7gcbGoDPwrt5QudDohEGUi8K xDCwqDUg45AAZ+bAaJc8FgTjvLZ3FRoL+3DEmNGFldEKT5BeIKYSQi8SiNOIkJiM te4dkrBuDOSsx6sLh1Rv/ZWG2l7MU= Received: by smtp.gaspard.ninja (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 77f7e73c; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:49:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (llwynog [local]) by llwynog (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 8eeae05c; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:49:44 +0000 (UTC) From: Leo Gaspard To: Gregor Zattler , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: Mail to self In-Reply-To: <87lg6icm5c.fsf@len.workgroup> References: <87y3ajboev.fsf@llwynog.ekleog.org> <87r2gbqhz8.fsf@tethera.net> <87va5ma5o7.fsf@llwynog.ekleog.org> <87lg6icm5c.fsf@len.workgroup> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 01:49:44 +0900 Message-ID: <871s87wf9z.fsf@llwynog.ekleog.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 16:49:50 -0000 (sorry for sending twice, had the wrong From: line once again, hopefully I have fixed my client by adding this address to `user.other_email` now=E2= =80=A6 need some time to adapt, sorry) Hi Gregor, Gregor Zattler writes: > For me, when I filtered emails in several folders and read them > with mutt (1) it was the other way around: I wished for the > possibility to mark them as read in all folders if read in one. This isn't incompatible, and I'm not wishing that notmuch stop marking as read per-message. However, I *am* wishing that when some other tool marked one of the message files as read and not the other, notmuch takes the safe route of marking the overall message as unread in its database. > But why would you tag a message (as opposed to a file) as > "unread" because it's a duplicate? Because usual folder-based applications display an unread marker with the number of unread messages near the folder, and this is a useless visual disturbance for the people for whom I administer the mail server. > If it's somehow important to you to know that a certain email > your read via notmuch is a duplicate, why not tag it as > "duplicate" instead? This is not a problem in notmuch (notmuch anyway just assumes that duplicates with the same Message-ID will never happen, which in my opinion is a bit optimistic, but I guess this design point is not going to change anyway and so am not going to argue further), but it is a problem with folder-based applications. When using a folder-based application, I don't want a Duplicates folder always popping up in my folder list with new messages until I read them, I want a Duplicates folder only to debug when things go weird and messages appear missing. > For the specific case of the duplicates folder: [...] Yes, now that I'm aware of this issue I can adapt my setup, likely by not indexing the duplicates folder indeed. However, I still think this is a big footgun, and take my missing 9 emails in the first 2 weeks of notmuch as proof of it. Just to repeat it at the end so my objective is clear: What I am wishing for is that when some tool outside of notmuch marked one of the message files as read and not the other, upon `synchronize_flags` notmuch takes the safe route of marking the overall message as unread in its database.