From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55938431FCF for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:10:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.438 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL=2.438] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PK0LPXOOlwDX for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:10:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Greylist: delayed 423 seconds by postgrey-1.32 at olra; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:10:21 PDT Received: from xmenrevolution.com (xmenrevolution.com [97.107.134.16]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8208D431FCB for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by xmenrevolution.com (Postfix, from userid 113) id 62CDD16A96; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 19:03:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from agartha (static-155-212-141-65.mas.onecommunications.net [155.212.141.65]) by xmenrevolution.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FC2216A91; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 19:03:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Harlan Lieberman-Berg To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Proposal: List-Id User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 19:02:56 -0400 Message-ID: <87wq2huan3.fsf@setec.io> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 04:01:01 -0700 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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, 15 Mar 2015 23:10:25 -0000 Hello everyone! One of my (few) problems right now with notmuch is around mailing lists that are copied, either as CC or BCC, on various emails that go around. My filtering inside notmuch right now doesn't catch all the messages, since the only tag I can match on is "to:foo@bar.org" and not all messages have the to rewritten. The standard for identifying mailing lists seems to be List-Id, as per RFC 2919. I can understand the desire to keep the number of headers included in the header block low, but I wonder if this might be a common enough use-case to suggest its inclusion. As a counter-argument, I can see the parallel to spam filtering which come with their own set of headers that are not special cased by notmuch, but there seems to be much more variety in headers there - as well as different user configurations. Thank you all for your help, and I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts. (I'm not yet subscribed, so please keep me CCed to the thread.) Sincerely, -- Harlan Lieberman-Berg ~hlieberman