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 3AD766DE0946 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 01:23:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.006 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.006 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 MAGRWWv1G3X0 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 01:23:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB8BA6DE02AC for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 01:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bxrZv-0007v6-Pz; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 04:22:55 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 16483 invoked by uid 1000); Sat, 22 Oct 2016 08:23:10 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Mark Walters , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] nmbug: allow excluded messages In-Reply-To: <1477123180-19381-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> References: <1477123180-19381-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 05:23:10 -0300 Message-ID: <8737jog5ch.fsf@tethera.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 08:23:18 -0000 Mark Walters writes: > This makes nmbug work even if the notmuch mailing list messages are > excluded (i.e., have a tag in the excluded tags list). > --- > > I keep all my mailing list emails under an excluded tag (initially > this was to test the exclude code thoroughly, but I find it convenient > to keep day to day email and mailing list email separate). However, > this confuses nmbug -- would the following patch be acceptable? > > (I think this is the only place it is needed, but I don't use nmbug > much so I haven't tested thoroughly.) No objections from me.