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 481666DE00BD for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:56:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.019 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.008, 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 6Er0D5Pkb4Yl for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:56:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4522C6DE02D5 for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aoy3C-0005of-CA; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 14:56:06 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 4334 invoked by uid 1000); Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:55:55 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , David Mazieres expires 2016-07-03 PDT , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: Breaking a really long thread In-Reply-To: <8760vrm3jk.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> References: <87k2kd8r6d.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> <87wpoc7hf8.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <8760vrm3jk.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+99~gd93d377 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 15:55:55 -0300 Message-ID: <87fuuu3938.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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, 09 Apr 2016 18:56:25 -0000 Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > On Tue 2016-04-05 01:28:43 -0400, David Mazieres wrote: >> Arguably, I would say either both the In-Reply-To and the References >> header should be hidden or neither. Otherwise, what was happening is >> that I was deleting the In-Reply-To header as it was the only one I saw, >> and figuring that maybe References was adjusted after the fact based on >> In-Reply-To. After all, the message buffer doesn't keep track of the >> parent message. >> >> Unless there's a reason that someone would want to alter In-Reply-To >> without altering References, it doesn't make sense to show one without >> the other. > > I think i agree with David here, but the fact is that > message-hidden-headers is derived directly from emacs (in message.el), > and isn't part of notmuch-emacs at all. > > Are these changes worth addressing upstream? Possibly. Although changing defaults is usually a cesspit of bikeshedding. What would we ask, that upstream add In-Reply-To to message-hidden-headers? Related, showing hidden headers doesn't actually work very well: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=23252 I thought briefly about overriding the value in notmuch-message-mode, perhaps by having a defcustom for notmuch-message-hidden-headers. d