On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:19:06 -0800, Carl Worth wrote: > Elsewhere in the thread Jameson Rollins wrote: > > I should have mentioned in my previous mail that I think this tool is > > a great idea, and I plan on using it. I just hope that all of it's > > functionality will be integrated directly into notmuch itself. > > I think that's the open question still. How much of this kind of > functionality do we integrate into notmuch itself. I don't know the > answer to that question yet, but I'm quite happy to see people > experimenting with doing scripts like this on top of notmuch already. > > I do know that I want to do thing to make such scripting easier, > (independent of whether the current functionality gets folded into > notmuch). Hey, Carl. Yeah, this was an old post and there's been lots of discussion about it. I'm certainly more flexible about my position now than I think I was originally. In fact, I actually gave up on syncing notmuch and maildir, and am basically punting on maildir altogether. This is slightly problematic because notmuch is still missing some key features so I occasionally have to use other mailers to achieve certain things (especially OpenPGP stuff). I worry about it down the line as well, if I ever have to use another mailer for any reason. All mail I've received since my switch to notmuch will show up as "unread" in maildir readers. I think notmuch wrapper scripts like notmuchsync are going to be crucial for notmuch down the line, so I definitely agree that doing everything possible to make it easier for them is a very good thing. I am using notmuchsync for deleting "delete" tagged messages, for which it's very useful. It's pretty slow, though, which I've been chalking up to the fact that it has to parse the notmuch "show" output. Once notmuch can output just the paths to messages matching search results that should get much much faster. jamie.