On 02/14/2015 02:28 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Yeah, gmail is broken that way. I hope they fix it soon. >> >> It's even more annoying when the email is _addressed_ to you and the >> first email you get comes from a list so the server filter labels and >> archives it, and then discarded every other copy you get. >> >> So it never ends up in your inbox. > > You're doing it wrong. > > Here's what I do: > > - I have a rule for lkml, but it doesn't archive it, it just adds the > lkml label > > - I have *another* rule for archiving mailing lists, but it has a > "!to:me" in it Thanks. Yeah, I figured that out (afaict it's not common knowledge that filters stack). My other rule that does the archiving I defined like: "to:(-email@domain) has:userlabels" However that has to be the last rule and it way over-complicates filtering by mailing list. Many mailing lists have reflectors so I have to constantly redefine the labeling filters to catch reflector addresses as well. Then I have to fake edit the archiving rule because gmail detects if no changes have been made and doesn't re-save the archiving rule as the last rule. Like you point though, server filters are superior, and gmail is definitely better than my last provider. > what that results in is that only emails that are purely to the > mailing list (or other people) get archived, but if you get personally > cc'd it will show up in your mailbox. And this is why labels are so > much better than folders. Agree that labels are better. > And the nice thing is that if there was a long discussion about > things, and you get cc'd in the middle, you'll see the email you got > cc'd on *and* everything that led up to it, so you get the context. I also like this. But this breaks other things like selecting emails by date because it will select the entire conversation (so you have to turn off conversation view). I learned this the hard way when selecting by "before:<date>" and deleting selected :/ (that meant I had to re-archive those manually which took about a day) > So no, gmail isn't broken. Not in this area. This is, in fact, the > main reason I switched entirely to gmail, because the filtering is so > convenient, and works so right (there are other ones that get this > right too, of course). > > Now, gmail is broken in other ways. In particular, the web client > actually does ok (I use it for pretty much everything except for > handling the bulk mailing from Andrew), but you cannot do an inline > patch without whitespace getting screwed up. I've suggested a "attach > inline" option to the file attachment popup (that really would be > lovely), but no luck. IMO the web client needs a lot of work to match the convenience and information density of a local client, like thread navigation with keyboard to quick scan conversations containing new emails, preview pane (isn't that what 16:9 glass is for?), etc. (I would like to be able to say that offline mode is a plus as well, but every local client I've ever had has not been able to do mail sync quickly and error-free). Regards, Peter Hurley -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html