>>>>> "DB" == David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes: DB> Todd <todd@electricoding.com> writes: >> I wanted to tag messages with calendar invitations, but couldn't as >> the information wasn't indexed. >> >> This patch allows for queries for like: >> >> Find calendar invites >> - contenttype:text/calendar or contenttype:applicaton/ics >> >> Find any image attachments >> - contenttype:image >> >> Find all patches >> - contenttype:text/x-patch DB> The main issue, that I won't really address in this message (because I'm DB> hoping Austin finds time to comment) is upgrading the database. The short DB> version is that a new "database feature" needs to be created. I just discovered and starting using notmuch this week, so I'm not entirely familiar with the project yet. I had suspected there might be more work :) I'll look into the "database feature". My other thought was to just index the content-type with the attachment prefix. This would have made the first search that I attempted (without reading the docs/source) work (e.g. attachment:text/calendar or attachment:application/ics). Is this preferred to adding a new search term? >> --- a/NEWS >> +++ b/NEWS >> @@ -15,6 +15,12 @@ keyboard shortcuts to saved searches. >> Command-Line Interface >> ---------------------- DB> Minor point, 0.19 was released, you should start a new NEWS section for DB> 0.20 with date UNRELEASED I'll make that change. >> --- a/completion/notmuch-completion.bash >> +++ b/completion/notmuch-completion.bash DB> If you can without too much suffering, it would be nice to update the zsh completion at the same DB> time. I don't use zsh, but I'll look into what's needed. >> +The **contenttype:** prefix can be used to search for specific >> +content-types of attachments to email messages (as specified by the >> +sender). >> + DB> I'm not 100% sure, but I did wonder if the docs should mention MIME DB> somewhere, for people searching. Agreed. >> { "attachment", "XATTACHMENT" }, >> + { "contenttype", "XCONTENTTYPE"}, >> { "subject", "XSUBJECT"}, DB> I didn't work through all the details, but I did wonder if it was in DB> some sense redundant to be indexing contenttype and also the existing DB> attachement and encrypted pseudotags. I guess this might be one of DB> those cases where we are stuck with the extra indexing for now, until we DB> sort out some query parsing issues. DB> d - Todd