On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:53:41 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:14:13 +0100, Xavier Maillard <xavier@maillard.im> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:19:03 +0100, Pieter Praet <pieter@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@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@praet.org") IMHO, this is one of those options that should remain disabled until *explicitly* set by the user. > jamie. Peace -- Pieter