On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:31:23 +0000, Jani Nikula <jani at nikula.org> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:03:42 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter at praet.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:22:25 +0000, Jani Nikula <jani at nikula.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:05:27 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter at praet.org> > > > wrote: > > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:53:41 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins at > > > > finestructure.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:14:13 +0100, Xavier Maillard <xavier at > > > > > maillard.im> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:19:03 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter at > > > > > > praet.org> wrote: > > > > > > > If the 'search.exclude_tags' option is missing from the config > > > > > > > file, > > > > > > > its value is automatically set to "deleted;spam;". Taking > > > > > > > PoLS/DWIM > > > > > > > into account, this should probably only happen during setup. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch is actually Austin Clements' work: > > > > > > > id:"20120117203211.GQ16740 at mit.edu" > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think this is a sane default. As I told it in another > > > > > > post. I > > > > > > do not expect notmuch to skew my search queries not that I > > > > > > specifically > > > > > > asked. > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Xavier. Do you currently mark things as "deleted" or "spam"? If > > > > > not, this would have no affect on your search results. If you do, do > > > > > you currently expect those messages to show up in searches? If so, > > > > > why > > > > > did you mark them as "deleted" or "spam" to begin with? > > > > > > > > > > I agree with your point in principle (ie. I don't generally want my > > > > > searches tampered with behind the scenes) but the issue here is about > > > > > messages that have been explicitly tagged as a form of "trash". Trash > > > > > is by it's nature something you're trying to get rid of. If you > > > > > wanted > > > > > to find something in the future, why would you put it in the trash in > > > > > the first place? > > > > > > > > > > > > > You definitely have a point, but then again, who are we to assume that > > > > the terms "deleted" and "spam" have the *exact* same meaning for > > > > everyone? (also see id:"8739bbo0br.fsf at praet.org") > > > > > > "deleted" used to be a tag recognized by notmuch, and it used to sync to > > > the T (trashed) maildir flag. Even if notmuch won't delete any of your > > > mails now, I don't think you should use "deleted" on messages you want > > > to see again. Please let's not split hairs about this. > > > > > > > Agreed, but it might be nice to make a clear distinction between > > concepts and the actual tags mapped to them. I'm not suggestion we > > redefine the term "deleted", but from an internationalization > > standpoint, we shouldn't prevent users from mapping e.g. "verwijderd", > > "supprim?", "gel?scht", ... to the concept "deleted". > > > > > There really should be a definitive list of tags that are special to > > > lib/cli/emacs (like "inbox", "unread", "deleted", ...), or are > > > recommended for specific purposes (like "new" as an intermediate tag > > > before more sophisticated tagging), to avoid prolonged discussions like > > > this. > > > > > > > A list of recommended tags would definitely be nice, as long as they > > remain recommendations (as opposed to obligations), especially since > > there's really no reason to designate certain tags as being "special". > > Whether there's reason or not, certain tags are special, for a fact, and > they are not just recommendations. [...]
My mistake. Thanks for the correction! > [...] Perhaps one day someone will > contribute patches to make them configurable, and separate the concepts > from the actual tags, but in the mean time it will be easier to just > document them for what they are. > Agreed. > BR, > Jani. Peace -- Pieter