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 4D0A56DE01D8 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 05:10:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.231, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 EkEaCRikaKnT for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 05:10:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Greylist: delayed 305 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at arlo; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 05:10:02 PDT Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7302A6DE00EF for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 05:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from len.workgroup ([84.185.99.119]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M6fXs-1fKNvt31eu-00wYJC for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:04:53 +0100 Received: from len.workgroup ([84.185.99.119]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M6fXs-1fKNvt31eu-00wYJC for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:04:53 +0100 From: Gregor Zattler To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: Mail to self In-Reply-To: <87va5ma5o7.fsf@llwynog.ekleog.org> References: <87y3ajboev.fsf@llwynog.ekleog.org> <87r2gbqhz8.fsf@tethera.net> <87va5ma5o7.fsf@llwynog.ekleog.org> Mail-Followup-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:04:47 +0100 Message-ID: <87lg6icm5c.fsf@len.workgroup> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:JJh3y9ld88ebisuhnSo8RGZuU3BMH9F/2XAiUC/KWMg4sxrKyyE YxRSsgIdoabi3/lSL4W9YLx6E0IJd545Ea002iH3Eq0X4x7xxqmYueuEoqYPIP2RjAPFlGu 3XSpI6IEBoEQdmcUIimNALLvgCn7wbRscZZjAGaBKCwy2OmyuKhsRjIGsd3Ds3n6GoP8rBe 39EU6dRPrD7Z7K7UNamrQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:yGp3PuTA4UU=:UiqSR0368T+XU3qBZREP7m sI33hwphT7AJDEPLYpCMMS2Hj17rTdxr1sK9GwbN0VApFT+l5xc8KMDvs3i3LAtO13lTEt0VC wtovayLpZEX7vfKtjCiJDpLcjBo3iAjsi2FsFp4NgfK/SyrHQLLHNSwUrLt1DVpjZXkHn3O/D v4ul2+JsrYqzi+XqX6/r7Q+cTM+MeSpeR6RSmKoJGbzhOxHs4424sCMtsjfPsCeQy2oCxxNdw BodXjXssq6UYwZoQA9mYbGdlJf372QFBEHQsHd5gNIEn1euKRFDcjIEPuoCjEBUJRy9quObFJ SYKe/KmQbx1SxKSMjHpYmCrQ0nAunbmd9MPuYuB9uuyZ9E0PATGWKEG5nfgpIjJRCz0l62LBV WKgRGBJUJOSsyKrjqjLb5kh2Q/pLh9BHnI0FjMDvowT/SNwf+rszFEkvYBy7dtOTD3ljFc1CG diGR83+qylOWmAjd4OUb2gqaATmk5Z1rxOooN+n9hX+IXFnbjecJdMC8F1/pidaC4DXO8e2fF Ann0Ljc/pqBH7Uc8iUhs3NK8wfvqSCn3ujZ8Ak1NXvnc+0VoFAukltNW22fOVKFTh2+/r4lAg 8skX2VrxvvIQAgshboL5r62QgBQ105BzqN/FAr+D/MEtNxfQ62imRbufMsNP3HFVZaT2NmAix aMGeHIwfQvx+P8QnpucRyfH5CIk3uM5M0KkXwNasScTpycmgfW1CRDvM67WkS8oZNKTROsmVV nvCi4x19CXODUQ3iz9Hd7SQqFXlmeAtvFQSvCAqc7t5tMUlewGdG7kkHzhrr000kaYKsP5oT2 EmippnamJfsRVzzvS0G0lrcuUbh5lek0dtqBvP0oRkGcNbMN2o= 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, 28 Oct 2018 12:10:04 -0000 Hi Leo, notmuch users and developers, I too filter emails into different folders. And I used to filter some emails in several folders in order to find them in different contexts. * Leo Gaspard [2018-10-28; 16:31]: > I can confirm this is my issue. My thinking is that if any file does not > have the ,S maildir flag, then I would prefer the mail to be marked as > unread, as a read mail that is spuriously marked as unread is a small > inconvenience, while an unread mail that is spuriously marked as read > can have huge consequences. For me, when I filtered emails in several folders and read them with mutt (1) it was the other way around: I wished for the possibility to mark them as read in all folders if read in one. I think your reasoning is also sound but only iff tags would belong to files, but they belong to messages. > Actually, I just noticed while writing this mail that I had setup a > sieve filter for duplicate email that put them in a "Duplicate" folder > and automatically marks them as "read", so that at the same time they > wouldn't bother me in the thunderbird interface but I could still check > dovecot's duplicate detection didn't have false positives. > > This behaviour of notmuch thus made me miss 9 emails in the 2 weeks I've > been using it, the oldest being 12 days ago, without any warning. Well, > now I know about it and can try to change my setup (except I can't > really touch this sieve filter as other people rely on it), but... But why would you tag a message (as opposed to a file) as "unread" because it's a duplicate? If it's somehow important to you to know that a certain email your read via notmuch is a duplicate, why not tag it as "duplicate" instead? I suppose you do this filtering in case you read those emails with a file/folders based client. But would you actually "read" emails in a duplicate folder? I too have a duplicate folder and it was useful some times in order to investigate problems with my processing of incoming emails, but I do not read them in order to understand the meaning of some message a human sent me. Since I also filter emails in folders my searches heavily relay on the path the message is in with the "path:" search prefix. These is true for all mailing lists, for instance. For the specific case of the duplicates folder: It's simply not in the same maildir notmuch indexes and therefore there is no issue with them for me. My procmail scripts first do a backup of an incoming email, later they filter duplicates in a duplicates folder and when an email actually is delivered in the maildir hierarchy notmuch indexes, then it is also backed up in a third backup folder for post-processed emails. These three special folders are directories under my ~/.procmail directory and are not indexed by notmuch. HTH, Gregor -- -... --- .-. . -.. ..--.. ...-.-