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 715306DE0EC6 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 05:46:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.061 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.061 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.060, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 dfFa4CLEJXGm for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 05:46:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 935426DE0E8C for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 05:46:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iWKsV-0002Yl-W4; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 08:46:12 -0500 Received: (nullmailer pid 15230 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 17 Nov 2019 13:46:11 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen , Alvaro Herrera , Tomi Ollila Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: notmuch ignoring alot of emails In-Reply-To: <87v9rismzz.fsf@tethera.net> References: <20190701153657.GA9961@alvherre.pgsql> <87y2wfsorq.fsf@tethera.net> <87eey7szz6.fsf@eirikba.org> <87v9rismzz.fsf@tethera.net> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 08:46:11 -0500 Message-ID: <87k17ysjj0.fsf@tethera.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 13:46:17 -0000 David Bremner writes: > Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen writes: > >> >> Or, notmuch could just look at the first line of the file. If it starts >> with "From ", it is an mbox. If it starts with a reasonable mail header, >> it is not an mbox. If it is neither, fall back to the old heuristics. >> > > FTR, this is what happens now (although iirc the actual check is done by > GMime). So maybe I'm missing some context here. Re-reading, I guess your point is maybe that we should ignore successive unescaped "From "? We're really trapped a bit by wanting to support single message mboxes. We tried to remove this support at one point, but this caused so much problems we put it back. d