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 8159B6DE0ABA for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:45:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, 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 tiaGQRMK4Vkk for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76EF56DE0AAB for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fA38Y-0000XG-D7; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 20:45:50 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 6230 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 22 Apr 2018 00:45:49 -0000 From: David Bremner To: "Naveen N. Rao" , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: 'notmuch search thread:<>' lists multiple threads In-Reply-To: <1524045467.a0aq8zermb.naveen@linux.ibm.com> References: <1523007700.l8xm6nm6af.naveen@linux.ibm.com> <87sh86v1oc.fsf@tethera.net> <878t9wvbmu.fsf@tethera.net> <1524045467.a0aq8zermb.naveen@linux.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 21:45:49 -0300 Message-ID: <87r2n8m5ky.fsf@tethera.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 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, 22 Apr 2018 00:45:54 -0000 "Naveen N. Rao" writes: > In my case, I seem to be having the In-Reply-To headers. I end up with > two files per message: one from my inbox and one from the gmane archive > that I pull in. All the messages from the gmane archive seem to have a > re-written 'In-Reply-To' header, but 'Message-Id' and 'References' are > the same. That sounds like essentially the same issue, due to the fact that notmuch prefers In-Reply-To when choosing a parent for a message. Currently the database is correct (or at least one not-crazy definition of correct): all of the reference and in-reply-to terms are attached to the message document in the database. On the other hand, the in memory data structures currently assume that In-reply-to is a unique value (with ties broken at indexing time). It might be that the solution is to read a list of in-reply-to values and use all of them in threading. At a quick glance, that looks doable; I'm just not sure about unintended consequences. d