> But the above sounds like the List-Id header is unreliable enough to > be useless.
In my current .sieve setup, I have 93 entries for mailing lists. 87 of them use list-id[1]. 3 use list-post. 1 uses 'mailing-list', but looking at it, could be switched to list-id. 2 use x-mailing-list (blasted vger.kernel.org). None of my email gets misfiled, so it seems pretty darn reliable to me. :) Now, if you have an MTA that does duplicate suppression based on message-id, you probably won't see the copy of a message that went to the list if you're cc:'d on it because the direct copy (sans list-id header) is likely to arrive first. I would argue that that's a feature not a bug---the sender, at least, hopes you will give it closer scrutiny because you were CC:'d. They're trying to bring it to your attention. Besides, in notmuch, what's the difference going to be? It'll still be threaded the same, etc., but you'd be able to tell that this one came to you rather than through the list, no? (I'm waiting for Debian packages, lazy bastard that I am, so I'm guessing on that) > Any reason not to just use something like > to:notm...@notmuchmail to match messages sent to a list like this one? On the linux-kernel list, l-k often isn't in the to: field---or does notmuch also index the cc: as to:? If it does, this could work; if not, FAIL. Mike.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
