Re: [Evolution-hackers] Re: detecting forgotten attachments (was Re: [Evolution-hackers] bounties)

[Daniel Gryniewicz <dang fprintf net>]

On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 16:48 -0700, Ray Lee wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 19:23 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> > The hard part is detecting when the user meant to attach something.
> 
> As with anything in the domain of automatic double-checking of humans, a
> 90% solution is nearly always better than a zero, as a 100% solution is
> unobtainable.
> 
> > Most people don't craft their subject lines to satisfy people's mail
> > filters.
> 
> True. Most messages with a patch do include [PATCH] in the subject,
> however. As for an attachment, checking for "see" and "attachment"
> within three words of each other in the body would probably be good
> enough, and give few false positives.
> 

There is one major exception: replying to a thread on a mailing list
that included [PATCH] in the original subject.  The user may or may not
intend to attach a patch, but the subject gives no indication either
way.

Daniel