David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes: > Olivier Berger <olivier.berger@telecom-sudparis.eu> writes: > >> >> So, I've tried and removed the spam tag from the exclude_tags, and >> suddenly, the search in emacs responds with the 981... which means that >> most of the deleted ones had the spam tag too. >> >> >> So it means that if one explicitely requests an excluded tag, other >> exclude tags still apply. Not sure this is the desirable option : maybe >> if one exclusion is waved, then others should too ? >> >> What do you think ? > > I'm not sure. What you suggest sounds sensible enough. On the other hand > the way it behaves now is precisely as documented; I'm not sure whether > this is because of a design choice or ease of implementation. Maybe Mark > can comment further on that. I guess there are even people who > like/rely on the current functionality, since there always are ;). > In any case, there has been a change in the way this worked. For the moment, I'm using the following saved search : (tag:deleted or tag:spam) and tag:deleted which will display the deleted mails. FWIW. Best regards, -- Olivier BERGER http://www-public.telecom-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF Institut Mines-Telecom, Telecom SudParis, Evry (France)