On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:46:56 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote: > I missed some of the previous discussion on this, but rather than add a > new flag, why not just use the existing "match" flag? If the message is > excluded, just mark "match" as "false". I think this is basically all > we really want. If the message is "excluded" include it in returned > threads, but just don't display it. This is in fact exactly what the > "match" flag is currently for, and I can't see any reason not to use it > here. We don't need to add anything new to the show output, and I > believe it will simplify this patch set considerably. Also, using the match flag means that all the consumers that use this will all automatically do the right thing, without modification. jamie.