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 D9F8F6DE01E3 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 06:30:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.368 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.285, DKIMWL_WL_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 q2DtC7TIXnf5 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 06:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-f49.google.com (mail-wm1-f49.google.com [209.85.128.49]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BF3A6DE018C for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 06:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-f49.google.com with SMTP id r63-v6so2030817wma.4 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 06:30:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dme-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=to:subject:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=o3X8II1d/CFe8xrX2/vGZfDrzxCaBMbspN2kvQ9Ng10=; b=n6kf8GY111t32y5Yd3VyYQ+e9OTb/Aqw/YT0iyI1EcJeeTFO7bsBfHb3mN4EMezQYd XzEA+gPOckYLDM+fnt/Cn10H7FjkjvjQ3McNuRPzgX86hAtOEClUHarG0n9fZtWnoa0K PJyQKeom8ds38JDpdN2RRRbWewTMeWa2OjR+93IQynFPcv2SV1SsgQi+afRs9NnduALe bp5axpdu61Y6kTeZkWoi3cpRfQm9D1SLUkE1uQGIqGwu0asHJju7BD4yEZtZrS5RkCVa C7y5tE0u5yzV9cUaTYrSQPYhGVfuwwl2NwfqeELVLF+SnDzSlsjhge22BCzNV1cZBkhl mdhA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=o3X8II1d/CFe8xrX2/vGZfDrzxCaBMbspN2kvQ9Ng10=; b=pLaAwc7Qp4VAr77AiyEGXe4xS9s1scR9s9YOnNDeNs52Yfv4EUqf9/htr113t9QI0Z YB999+eNDgWzrVaT7U1cu8jV/DdcIa2mGIztJJT9WnuDrTrnBZMV31UqE9Vljd2645Pb f1YTMurV7lSvLe2xp1hQbyX6LL45CN1uVJ8Qd2d1aCrsnpSxjTFiJR6yuhlSDkkoQp65 /gDciXb+mUSvcCkQMI0k0i7NljcyPZGZgdeNbz8NyK9UdcyA49M4DCpjZFu+ngGUxRa9 IcnhEyRIVcM68yBKkN0xORFnX7YWoInN8jcHiEkj5VxNfBiZEknkAgSwTIlPo/UjhKs2 I/xQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfogPB9EMdz+QXxee0VQkLAcDZAdcoxdtO2/dXe+6hP1dynz3WMpZ z4ft5i6DQx0NqJrfeFvwe14XWw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62YmQnWLRHYUk2+8MlcAf1c9sazwxa/m8U/HjyCqy+XwkzkZedlBh0LpbIDfheWwho+zaAl4w== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7a0a:: with SMTP id v10-v6mr2938845wmc.41.1539783002172; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 06:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from disaster-area.hh.sledj.net (disaster-area.hh.sledj.net. [81.149.164.25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 78-v6sm1172836wma.38.2018.10.17.06.30.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Oct 2018 06:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (disaster-area.hh.sledj.net [local]) by disaster-area.hh.sledj.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id efde60de; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:29:59 +0000 (UTC) To: Jeff Templon , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: tell me how to do this (mass tagging of messages) In-Reply-To: References: X-HGTTG: gag-halfrunt From: David Edmondson Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:29:59 +0100 Message-ID: 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: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:30:06 -0000 On Wednesday, 2018-10-17 at 13:39:10 +02, Jeff Templon wrote: > Hi, > > David Edmondson writes: > >> On Wednesday, 2018-10-17 at 10:06:18 +02, Jeff Templon wrote: > >>> So how do I make sure that I'm operating on the messages themselves >>> (only one of the 14 messages is marked 'spam') and not the threads? > >> In this context, does it matter? If you remove 'spam' from the entire >> thread it will affect only that one message, as it's the only one with >> the tag. > > Right. Poor example. I guess the better question is, in a screen full > of threads matching a particular query, how do I do a mass action on > only those messages that match the query and not on the threads? There's no easy way to do that now. Maybe we should make it such that a prefix argument to the tag operation affects only matching messages in the affected threads? dme. -- You took the words right out of my mouth.