How about:
441 12/18 Joel Uckelman (0) [Nmh-workers] mhshow: invalid QUO
442 12/18 Josh Bressers (1) Re: [Nmh-workers] mhshow: invalid
443 12/18 Paul Fox (1) Re: [Nmh-workers] mhshow: invalid
444 12/18 Joel Uckelman (2) Re: [Nmh-workers] mhshow: invalid
448 12/19 To:nmh-worker (3) Re: [Nmh-workers] mhshow: invalid
447 12/19 To:nmh-worker (1) Re: [Nmh-workers] mhshow: invalid
Sorry, what I meant was:
447 12/19 To:nmh-worker (3) Re: [Nmh-workers] mhshow: invalid
448 12/19 To:nmh-worker (1) Re: [Nmh-workers] mhshow: invalid
This would provide - depending on sorting - the same information as
above, could be calculated statically/on a per message basis, would be
easier to represent on a terminal and easier to parse for humans if the
thread is longer than the screen.
[...] But I hope that the default format
will not change.
As do I.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers