Norm, I had no idea you had so many things backed up :-)
The only messages considered will be those for which the relevant date
field exists, has a valid format, and defines a date that is
chronologically strictly after {before} the date specified.
I'm looking at the man page ... and that's not that different than what is
there, right? It only clarifies the bit about the format being valid.
This assumes that the field occurs at most once. What happens if there is more
than one occurrence is above my pay grade.
I think ... what will happen is that the first Date: field will be used.
NEW FEATURE REQUEST:
Particularly, for use in connection with sortm, there ought to be a
straightforward way of selecting precisely those messages for which a validly
formated, relevant date field exists and has a valid format, or if you prefer
those not having a validly formatted, relevant date field.
You mean, you want a test for "valid date" and "not valid date"? Hm.
Doesn't seem so bad. It looks like TWSaction does 90% of this already.
In fact, I guess right now if dparsetime() fails it matches the message
always ... so wait, technically I think your paragraph above is wrong.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers