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 BCD1C6DE13C4 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: arlo.cworth.org; dkim=pass (4096-bit key; secure) header.d=kolabnow.com header.i=@kolabnow.com header.b="3OqcR90F"; dkim-atps=neutral X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.32 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.319, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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 THn85MPJy3tS for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.kolabnow.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.41]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB29E6DE13C2 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by ext-mx-out003.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A684B40413; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 23:16:33 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kolabnow.com; h= content-type:content-type:mime-version:message-id:date:date :references:in-reply-to:subject:subject:from:from:received :received:received:received; s=dkim20160331; t=1585602992; x= 1587417393; bh=2tEMaHbA/aoHjAlv4varaBS2Iy45OGibWI70GmW+aYA=; b=3 OqcR90F1V7UfTWDSibDBPHm2KAMOBzpiIXi08wiQtyKQBvF6BlinNG+mwmWpRR6f kenpcBDddr0CVfDzKO4zTZv03Yq4AUcMRoGov5UGyYC1EMqgPTXftEfuuxwN208T NR4q37lAPnuhfRXk1RORORvrKAL/f6thU0JFT+CkEpV3AvAGMtTVu0qiAj3FyRKU TJPzz0WJqrhdl5dgU7Mmk8IQEe9PNBMzHV665B6yk5SmJeo5jthJKCI6/OsvD6ep gMaILtcsdBFL71YNPCBKimL8piU3YeyqdSRmFtBqdk0Sp1WXfEzszVL9pYudth0P 2u9HO58DElkasyZ9lGywlHl7sx24AzXaV9Jdd3sWJgpWiD0gf0P/rnZXZ3Np3ark gZKm9FgU2ZkzB1lTQEjSjfqgEsBYeG5oAS6uVa4hXoel3hGe0rLgmpUhR4GgnsgB cb53RzhKyp8H/xZaORjSxVU6U6Lm1rva3py5B8Ylx/L/aOC7gvsB55EpJLWPv0WX Kap2MOmUlGYbxDBsIFoObtKWDF6jEjd4j0lwFdwgapIF8S7+Vo/jmtjWJJbfYtSz Q5HJ5+5bwDsRtluk3FV5+fIr+coHLch2nSpUUvFgL/AJsOHirIyVCJhkGWCNpfl3 dlBUhGc954JxpXN24Jv6Nup9KLNz8RDjtYESCq5Tqc= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mykolab.com Received: from mx.kolabnow.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ext-mx-out003.mykolab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mlBdyUJHkB2A; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 23:16:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from int-mx002.mykolab.com (unknown [10.9.13.2]) by ext-mx-out003.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAD1F403FA; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 23:16:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ext-subm002.mykolab.com (unknown [10.9.6.2]) by int-mx002.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BBEF3B86; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 23:16:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: by silverfish.pri (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 315802081D3F; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:16:28 +1100 (AEDT) From: Brian May To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , Carl Worth , David Bremner , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: Weird tagging issue In-Reply-To: <87d08u5sdz.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> References: <87pnd9ufzf.fsf@silverfish.pri> <87eetnvqhs.fsf@silverfish.pri> <87tv2ifri9.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87r1xkt784.fsf@silverfish.pri> <87imivlvrl.fsf@tethera.net> <874ku6vppj.fsf@silverfish.pri> <87ftdq6971.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87zhbyu35v.fsf@silverfish.pri> <87r1xaoe8i.fsf@wondoo.home.cworth.org> <87d08u5sdz.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:16:28 +1100 Message-ID: <87mu7xtufn.fsf@silverfish.pri> 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: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:16:39 -0000 Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > Well, not if they're actually all the same message, right? > > Brian, can you confirm whether the body of these 4 messages are the same > or not? (e.g. you might have gotten different copies due to receiving > mail at different e-mail addresses, or through a mailing list, or just > through an SMTP hiccup) All emails appear to be different. I think bitbucket stuffed up. > What about for a message that References: its own Message-ID:? Do we > expect to handle that case sensibly? I'm not sure where i'd look in the > test suite to confirm that we intend to make that work OK, and i can > definitely imagine that being a goofy corner case when trying to > manipulate threads. I can't help here. I do have a vague recollection that I have seen this situation in the past (any easy way to search for such emails?), but I really can't remember how well notmuch copes (the fact I noticed such an issue might suggest I encountered difficulties - or maybe this was something else entirely). -- Brian May https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/