[PATCH 3/4] config: only set search.exclude_tags to "deleted; spam; " during setup

[Jani Nikula]

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",
> "supprimé", "gelöscht", ... 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. 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.

BR,
Jani.