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 DB5C46DE185F for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:32:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.151 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.084, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 RFzjZdi6ncKV for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE3236DE185E for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:32:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id n186so96034730wmn.1 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:32:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dme-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :mime-version; bh=MyzU6+BDkPO7eKASe1AGvRprLFxjDR/4CO1YMxBdZ2s=; b=wYnZ/ieON6VnbPekC9pnK+VNQlQogeeMlXW9ftuIqZn4hzkx+y+YyhdK+434d8eoRj ta34zL/4Km1L3hKae3S9vddFgoNrMcxpJVVjZ97gBFsCAvAS3/ZewO2EsfreD2SspI23 x1ssbs2YNxeUpkRpaOuXKJdbdOr+6Ad17WDWaCAoMhPUh4VHWRedsrZhcgRZZejtwG/M vGnYjhd3VUFyeOySGTciTbKVRYYwCJ6lBJtY6YMPkUhPJpBJgLYIUHYwHkoSbdfQJXuB w3WyfEn/fIQEhjHxpnpgjqjR/DRVxIjcHfJOAgxCfCSvOD4O5XhtL2/RAC94NySEcGHX j/HA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=MyzU6+BDkPO7eKASe1AGvRprLFxjDR/4CO1YMxBdZ2s=; b=XEu0zKYhhBNIwTqa3dJPAaoTvA2zsZqJ4KtFzPSTzGLj6oGr3BgPL72mt01FEVZUtZ 3sel3mXNKeEXC9fZgmIGNGdFQcbovxyLl7f4AIXPqVGAlDyrfQoclad34HbDt8uMSGRB gQb6KKdjI2ZsDpZnud4XTI+20wsY6ddT+KRKxE8F5t3S9kfULbZFPuLSSWKwhiSA+jlu 29rEIIcL7WCEEcfEWo+c8/zD8p7gqdZOHhMnFjCPSRdEErLyhd1oeDS1DUdrBoNd4KIA 3SGy0KaXmUsANWX4Hx4JmQeYRqo/nvL7+wrqWXVnb0tdXqIfV0P/ftTkUBCan2enZAjv hfNg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKm0x3pFXsOOSelduITFVUJIHlhx3O/nIzS0GA0exvHtTBaGijGsKP52o//Ajfh6g== X-Received: by 10.28.101.133 with SMTP id z127mr16823460wmb.84.1457944365463; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from disaster-area.hh.sledj.net ([2a01:348:1a2:1:ea39:35ff:fe2c:a227]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pd1sm21111819wjb.19.2016.03.14.01.32.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (disaster-area.hh.sledj.net [local]) by disaster-area.hh.sledj.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 327a1722; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:32:43 +0000 (UTC) To: Jani Nikula , David Bremner , Tomi Ollila , Matthew Lear Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: (emacs) Parsing problems replying to encrypted html In-Reply-To: <874mcapdgj.fsf@nikula.org> References: <56DD48B3.90604@bubblegen.co.uk> <87mvqatr6y.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87h9gigfyz.fsf@bubblegen.co.uk> <87pov58b9y.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87wpp76ctq.fsf@zancas.localnet> <874mcapdgj.fsf@nikula.org> From: David Edmondson Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:32:43 +0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:32:49 -0000 On Sun, Mar 13 2016, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, David Edmondson wrote: >> Is "reply" from search mode a common pattern of use? Currently it seems >> generally un-useful (the thread has to contain just a single message - >> not just a single matching message). > > I wish we could make it useful again. It was one of the neat features of > notmuch to be able to reply to multiple messages at once. Either all > messages in a thread from search view, or all expanded messages in a > thread from show view. We threw this out to make it easier to improve > the normal reply code. I had no idea that it previously worked as you describe. I will fix it.