Joel Uckelman <uckelman(_at_)nomic(_dot_)net> writes:
Thus spake Ken Hornstein:
Once again I've been bitten by a lone `sortm' defaulting to `all' when I
intended to do `sortm lp'. On a folder of some 20,000 emails that quite
perturbs incremental backups! `rmm' doesn't default to `all' so I'm not
sure sortm should; it's too destructive as the old order may not be
reproducible.
Hm. I guess to me "sortm" defaulting to "all" makes sense; I mean,
don't you want to that the vast majority of the time? (I'm guessing
"lp" is a sequence you created?). And I guess I always figured the
order of messages was ephemeral; that's why sortm exists, after
all.
But I can't claim to be the arbiter of how people use nmh; what do others
think?
Speaking for myself only: I can't recall a single time in 15 years of
using nmh that I've wanted to use sortm to sort less than a complete
folder.
I do that almost every day.
Norman Shapiro
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers