From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <david@tethera.net>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB12431FC3
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:39:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none]
	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 oGq3ssGSM6Iv for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
	Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:38:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from yantan.tethera.net (yantan.tethera.net [199.188.72.155])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52AD2431FAF
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:38:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from remotemail by yantan.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <david@tethera.net>)
	id 1XtL0f-00088U-BJ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:38:45 -0400
Received: (nullmailer pid 13219 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 25 Nov 2014
	18:38:39 -0000
From: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>
To: Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@telecom-sudparis.eu>
Subject: Re: tag:deleted messages immediately deleted ?
In-Reply-To: <87d28gd703.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr>
References: <877fyseuq8.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr>
	<87d28ku7rt.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
	<871tp0ek8b.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr>
	<87lhn8fmq9.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
	<877fypre49.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr>
	<87r3wx9eaq.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
	<87d28gd703.fsf@inf-11879.int-evry.fr>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.19+2~g32855b9 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:38:39 +0100
Message-ID: <87y4qz86s0.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:39:00 -0000

Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@telecom-sudparis.eu> writes:

>
> In any case, there has been a change in the way this worked.

That's strange, but since it is currently working as we expect, the main
question is whether we should change how excludes work.

>
> For the moment, I'm using the following saved search :
>     (tag:deleted or tag:spam) and tag:deleted
> which will display the deleted mails.

Right. For me it would be less confusing to write

       (tag:deleted and tag:spam) or tag:deleted

I agree that the interaction of excludes makes (either version of ) this
search look a bit strange.