"Alexey I. Froloff" <raorn@raorn.name> writes:

> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 08:54:59AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
>> On the other hand, _notmuch_message_gen_terms does return a status. I
>> agree that currently this status is not useful, but that could change in
>> the future.  I also agree that the existing code does the same thing in
>> a few places, but I think it's better not to introduce more.
> Well, this is an adaptation of earlier patch, posted in this list
> some time ago.

Sure, no blame attaches. But somebody still needs to fix the patch or
convince us it doesn't need fixing. 

>  Personally I see no reason in indexing list description.

That's an independent question.  I guess there is the question of how
much overhead this introduces into 

>> Any objections to the list: syntax?  The only issue I see is that at
>> some point we will probably add a generic header search syntax, and this
>> implicitly says list-id is more important/common than other headers.
> Actual list ID differs from List-Id header value.  I can't give
> an example of other message header with similar syntax other from
> From/To/Cc, but those headers already specially processed.

OK, that part seems relatively convincing to me.

d