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 3A0C9431FBF for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 04:10:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.165 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=0.865] autolearn=disabled 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 Lc3A0H0I9Zdd for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 04:10:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EECC6431FBC for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 04:10:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XzP39-0003Xp-64 for notmuch@notmuchmail.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:10:23 +0100 Received: from 151.62.31.98 ([151.62.31.98]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:10:23 +0100 Received: from lele by 151.62.31.98 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:10:23 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org From: Lele Gaifax Subject: Re: New "notmuch address" command Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:10:11 +0100 Organization: Nautilus Entertainments Message-ID: <874mt19iho.fsf@nautilus.nautilus> References: <878uid9qjl.fsf@nautilus.nautilus> <87ppbpf8yy.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.62.31.98 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:xSuHjrP5BcG1yuZJbgc98KHmiCI= 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, 12 Dec 2014 12:10:34 -0000 Michal Sojka writes: >> An (almost) equivalent of "notmuch-addrlookup foo" could be "notmuch >> address to:foo* OR from:foo*", but it has at least one indesiderable >> difference: it seems considering the "CC" field, but always emits the >> "TO" content (i.e., assuming I have a message I sent to "john@doe.com" >> and CCed to "foo@bar.com", "notmuch address to:foo" emits >> "john@doe.com", not "foo@bar.com") so the candidates it generates are >> way too much. >> >> I don't know it that's done on purpose (I clearly miss the use case if >> so). > > Yes, this is expected behavior. Notmuch address is basically a wrapper > around search command. The command does not interpret the query at all, > because there might be no from:/to: term. The use case was to SIMPLIFY > address completers. Ok, even if I still miss the point of searching for an address and obtaining (only, see below) something (apparently) unrelated. >> I wonder if it would be reasonable adding a "--complete" flag to the >> "address" command that selects a more specific behaviour, so that >> "notmuch address --complete foo": > ... >> b) searches the given text only in the related headers (hiding the >> difference between "incoming" and "outgoing" messages, > > This should be configurable, because --output=sender is much faster than > --output=recipients. I think that ideal address completion should offer > you the addresses you have already written to, i.e. > > notmuch address --output=recipient from:my@address to:"prefix*" > > But this may be too slow on non-SSD disks. Some users may therefore prefer > > notmuch address --output=sender to:my@address from:"prefix*" > > which would be faster, but also includes every spammer/robot/... who > sends anything to you. Yes, seems reasonable! >> and not >> considering the body at all) > > What considers body now? Well, "notmuch address foo" currently does that, and that sounds useful, to obtain a list of recipients who talked about "foo". >> c) avoids the "bug"/"feature" explained above > > Yes, if you know the substring you are looking for, implementing a > filter would be trivial. It's not just a matter of filtering, but rather *which* address is emitted: trying it out, in the case above the "foo@bar.com" is not even mentioned in the output, because it appears only as a CCed recipient. thank you, ciao, lele. -- nickname: Lele Gaifax | Quando vivrò di quello che ho pensato ieri real: Emanuele Gaifas | comincerò ad aver paura di chi mi copia. lele@metapensiero.it | -- Fortunato Depero, 1929.