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 4D62E431FB6 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:27:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] 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 9PkHdmb5GC5Y for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C60C431FB5 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyi11 with SMTP id 11so4049005wyi.26 for ; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.24.92 with SMTP id w70mr731423wew.43.1302967626912; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (99.28-240-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be [81.240.28.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s40sm1778241weq.28.2011.04.16.08.27.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:27:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Pieter Praet To: Jameson Rollins , notmuch Subject: Re: signed/encrypted tagging in crypto branch In-Reply-To: <87bp1o83ij.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> References: <4CF15D67.1070904@fifthhorseman.net> <87aak08fu8.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <87fwsf9mip.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <87tygl29vu.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <87oc5yi9us.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87d3mdvjwz.fsf@bookbinder.fernseed.info> <87k4gk70ng.fsf@SSpaeth.de> <87sjv8i7v6.fsf@irigaray.ross.mayfirst.org> <87sjv86mp9.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <4D6BF0AA.3070706@fifthhorseman.net> <874o7o6ih5.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <4D6C00C7.9000705@fifthhorseman.net> <8739n75zdb.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <87hbbno7ia.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> <87pqqb4ium.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <878vwuvupl.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> <87bp1o83ij.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.5-86-g4875299 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.1.50.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:27:02 +0200 Message-ID: <877haub4jd.fsf@A7GMS.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:27:16 -0000 On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 11:15:00 -0800, Jameson Rollins wrote: > On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 00:26:46 -0800, Jameson Rollins wrote: > > Hey, folks. I just pushed a couple of patches to my "crypto" branch [0] > > that add support for auto-tagging of multipart/signed and > > multipart/encrypted messages with the "signed" and "encrypted" tags > > respectively. Only new messages are thus tagged, so a database rebuild > > is required to auto-tag old messages. > > So I realized last night, what now seems obvious, that restoring tags > after a notmuch new will override any initial auto tagging. This means > that doing a database rebuild will *not* crypto tag all your old mail if > you then restore tags from a tag dump afterwords. > > I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done about this. I think > we either have to have a way to merge tags, or the signed and encrypted > indicators need to exist in a different field in the database. Tags > allow more flexibility in the UIs, but maybe we could just tag based on > a the new database field somehow? > > It's not such a big deal that we only get "signed" and "encrypted" from > here forward, but it would be nice to re-tag old messages this way. I > can imagine that something like this will come up again in the future, > and it would be nice if we had a solution. I'm open to suggestions. > > jamie. Non-text part: application/pgp-signature > _______________________________________________ > notmuch mailing list > notmuch@notmuchmail.org > http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch As long as we're talking solely about "signed" and "encrypted" (so no verification-wise information whatsoever), I'd definitely vote for a dedicated database field. It's absolutely immutable metadata, embedded in the message content. No point in using tags for that, though it's not mutually exclusive: "notmuch tag +signed -- is:signed" (or whatever, knock yourself out) If folders -which DO change, although rarely- got one, so should crypto. ...but that's just my (insufficiently) humble opinion. Peace -Pieter