On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:13:07 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote: > Quoth Tomi Ollila on Jan 21 at 11:48 am: > > On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:00:27 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrot> > > > > -large so the detection could be potentially slow). 2. A "notmuch > > > -search" syntax could be added to allow the user to find these files, > > > -(and perhaps delete them or move them away as appropriate). > > > +Add a "notmuch search" syntax to allow uses to find files recorded as > > > +non-emails in the database (and perhaps delete them or move them away > > > +as appropriate). > > > > Could these messages be tagged with some fixed tag -- we already have > > 'signed' and 'attachment' tag. maybe 'nonemail' (or something) could > > be used for these messages ? > > They aren't actually messages. Messages have a lot of basic metadata > that non-email files don't have, so I went with distinct types of > documents, figuring that would be much less disruptive than having to > deal with message objects that don't support most message methods. > For example, if there were a tag (or any general way to query this), > it's unclear what the output of > notmuch search --output=summary tag:nonemail > would be. yes, I started to think all these issues *after* sending that email. bunch on extra if's to the code and so on; better think something else... > This isn't necessarily the right approach, but if non-emails *are* > represented as messages, I'm not sure what to do with things like > notmuch_message_get_message_id and notmuch_message_get_thread_id or > how to maintain backwards compatibility for callers that don't expect > queries to return non-emails. so true. Tomi