Bug 474701 introduces a new search mechanism, commonly referred to as "gloda search". There is a use case for finding e-mails that have been categorized as spam that are not spam. The search will not include spam results by default. It should be augmented to allow the user to perform a fallback search that includes spam if they don't see what they want. This bug tracks that augmentation. An implementation detail is that we are disabling gloda indexing of spam on bug 484639 so this enhancement will need to use the traditional non-gloda search mechanism.

reasonable to make it depends on Bug 515909? [faceted search]: Implement did you mean XXX

(In reply to Wayne Mery (:wsmwk) from comment #1) > reasonable to make it depends on Bug 515909? [faceted search]: Implement did > you mean XXX I'm always in favour of linking potentially related bugs. Bug 515909 is *one way* of implementing this, but I'm not sure if it will cover all the use cases of this bug, so perhaps it's not a strict dependence. I'm not especially in favour of TB's approach of post-filtering (narrowing down big search results with extra restraints). I'd imagine folks who want to search their spam for ham regularly would want that option up-front, not after each search. But even for the after-the-fact approach of Bug 515909, it depends very much on the details: When will I see "Did you mean to search your spam, too?"?: - only when there are no results? (bad, because if there's just a single match for my search word, I'll be unable to get at my spam ham) - as an expanding option for *any* search result (better) With that said, I suppose it's ok to make this depend on Bug 515909 with a reference to this comment that Bug 515909 is just *one way* of doing this. Otherwise, we could use a "See also" link.