On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu+li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Xu, > > On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 05:55:02PM -0400, Xu Wang wrote: >> >> I would prefer not to use mutt-kz because I do not like using forks in >> general. I wouldn't mind rebasing the patches on top of mutt though. >> Has anyone had success with this or do they not apply cleanly? > > I use mutt-kz for a few years now. If you choose to use it, there is no > need to merge with upstream mutt yourself. The mutt-kz repository is > synced with the mutt repo when there are enough commits to be synced. > In case of security fixes, the merges are done almost immediately.
Good to know! > > Being able to search emails from within mutt is really convenient. On > top of that, I can access my emails using other applications because of > notmuch, e.g. I can link to emails from my notes in Org mode (an Emacs > major mode). I also have a few scripts that integrate easy access to > emails with my work flow. I also use a notmuch search based addressbook > with mutt. I cannot see any of this being possible without the search > capability offered by notmuch. Why not use message-ID and link to that? How does this linking to emails work better with mutt-kz? >> Is the only disadvantage of the virtual folder that changes made to a >> message in it are not applied to the actual message? > > This is not true, unless by changes you mean notmuch tags. In that > case, it doesn't make sense since a tag is meta information related to > indexing, so it is stored in the notmuch database. Notmuch, as a matter > of principle, never modifies the message file other than changing the > maildir flags, as appropriate. As far as I have followed notmuch > development, this is unlikely to change. I see, thank you for this explanation. > > Hope this helps, It helps a lot! Xu
