Re: [PATCH (rebased)] Handle message renames in mail spool

[Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1859 bytes --]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:09:46 -0500, Michael Alan Dorman <mdorman@ironicdesign.com> wrote:
> Now, if you have an MTA that does duplicate suppression based on
> message-id, you probably won't see the copy of a message that went to
> the list if you're cc:'d on it because the direct copy (sans list-id
> header) is likely to arrive first.
> 
> I would argue that that's a feature not a bug---the sender, at least,
> hopes you will give it closer scrutiny because you were CC:'d.  They're
> trying to bring it to your attention.

Sure, giving it closer scrutiny is good. But if I expect a search like:

	tag:lkml

to match all of my mail that came through the mailing list, but it
actually *misses* mail where the sender wanted me to give extra
scrutiny, then that's a big failure.

> Besides, in notmuch, what's the difference going to be?  It'll still be
> threaded the same, etc., but you'd be able to tell that this one came
> to you rather than through the list, no?

The difference is whether the message is found in a search, (see above).

> (I'm waiting for Debian packages, lazy bastard that I am, so I'm
> guessing on that)

Yeah, I'll get to that (real soon now, I promise.)

> On the linux-kernel list, l-k often isn't in the to: field---or does
> notmuch also index the cc: as to:?  If it does, this could work; if
> not, FAIL.

Yes. In notmuch, all recipient fields, (even Bcc: if a mail happens to
hit your mail store with that intact), all get indexed to a single "to"
prefix. My rationale is that when reading a message it's often very
useful to see whether I was addresses specifically or just CC'ed. But
when _searching_ for a message, it's too fragile to have to guess
whether the recipient was on the To: or CC: header (and too painful to
always type (to:me@example.com or cc:me@example.com).

-Carl

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]