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 5CD28429E26 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:03:37 -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 G6SoKmVC2r8f for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:03:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gw3.nixu.fi (mail-gw3.nixu.fi [193.209.237.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F3D2429E21 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:03:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (mail-gw3 [127.0.0.1]) by mail-gw3.nixu.fi (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id pB6M3NKS019422; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 00:03:23 +0200 Received: from taco2.nixu.fi (taco2.nixu.fi [194.197.118.31]) by mail-gw3.nixu.fi with ESMTP id 114cs0qp39-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:03:22 +0200 Received: from taco2.nixu.fi (taco2.nixu.fi [194.197.118.31]) by taco2.nixu.fi (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id pB6M3JHV020023; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 00:03:20 +0200 From: Tomi Ollila To: Bart Bunting , Jameson Graef Rollins , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: nottoomuch-addresses.pl In-Reply-To: References: <87wrabmb43.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10+55~gde3d46e (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Face: HhBM'cA~ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.5.7110, 1.0.211, 0.0.0000 definitions=2011-12-06_04:2011-12-06, 2011-12-06, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1112060242 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: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:03:37 -0000 On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:45:49 +1100, Bart Bunting wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Jamie on this one. > > The case sensitivity appears to get in the way of searching. I also > think that enabling the regular expression searching is a good idea. > > All in all though this is great. I did version 1.2 of nottoomuch-addresses.sh which does case insensitive searches. Note the renaming to .sh -- it is now shell script wrapper which runs 'exec grep -aiF "$*" -- grep is locale-aware which makes case insensitivity work outside of ASCII range. The perl code to create/update addresses file is exactly the same as in version 1.1 So, the current version (1.2) is available at http://www.iki.fi/too/nottoomuch/nottoomuch-addresses.sh sha1sum is 03aa8bcf4e32d47e453fc081376843ef03a427ad and doc page is at http://www.iki.fi/too/nottoomuch/nottoomuch-addresses/ > The only other idea I have, which is only half formed, is that it would > be nice to prioritize emails that are more important than others. > > I'm not sure exactly how this would work but something like: > - Addresses I have actualy sent email to rather than jjust received from > get a high priority in the result. > - Addresses that have sent me email directly rather than just to a list > get next priority. > - All other emails after that. > > Also some sort of weighting within the groups to do with frequency of > emails sent or something. > > Does that make sense? Would it be hard to implement? Neat idea. To implement the feature into program is not too hard. Somehow determine weight for each email address, store that into hash (key address, value weight). Then, when writing addresses file, sort first by weight and then ascii order. The hash is also stored to disk (using tie()) and used when address file updated. Now, how to determine good (generic) rules for weights (and maybe some user-defined rules as well) is the question. > > Cheers > > Bart Thanks, Tomi