On 11 October 2012 at 14:26, Paul Fox
<pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)boston(_dot_)ma(_dot_)us> wrote:
kevin wrote:
>
> On 11 October 2012 at 10:35, Joel Uckelman <uckelman(_at_)nomic(_dot_)net>
wrote:
>
> > 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 have two use cases for sortm
>
> 1. sortm +folder
>
> 2. sortm -textfield subject -limit 0 +folder
>
does that actually work for you?
The first command sorts by date, which I want. The second command
sorts by subject, which I want. I agree with you that the sub-sort
by date doesn't work. I hadn't noticed that before.
i like catching up on mail in
subject thread order. the man page says that "-textfield subject
-limit 0" should sort in subject-major, date-minor order, which i
think is what i want -- messages grouped by subject, and by date
within each subject.
but, in a folder with these messages:
$ scan last:6
9891 12:40 Sally Moulton [arlington] Solarize Mass reps speak tonight,
9893 12:19 David Levine Re: [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is
Br
9894 12:37 To:pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)bo RSS feeds
9899 05:51 "T-Alerts Notific Red Line Braintree Alert
9900 14:32 Ralph Corderoy [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is
Brain-
9901 11:37 To:pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)bo RSS feeds
$ sortm -textfield subject -limit 0 last:6
$ scan last:6
9891 12:40 Sally Moulton [arlington] Solarize Mass reps speak tonight,
9893 12:19 David Levine Re: [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is
Br
9894 14:32 Ralph Corderoy [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is
Brain-
9899 05:51 "T-Alerts Notific Red Line Braintree Alert
9900 12:37 To:pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)bo RSS feeds
9901 11:37 To:pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)bo RSS feeds
note that ralph's 14:32 message really is earlier than david's 12:19
reply, due to timezone. the subject ordering is correct, but the date
ordering is reversed from chronological.
paul
--- somewhat unrelated but quite useful workaround follows ---
the following commands are my workaround:
sortm
sortm -textfield subject
i've put the messages back in the original order to start:
$ scan last:6
9915 12:40 Sally Moulton [arlington] Solarize Mass reps speak tonight,
9916 12:19 David Levine Re: [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is
Br
9917 12:37 To:pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)bo RSS feeds
9918 05:51 "T-Alerts Notific Red Line Braintree Alert
9919 14:32 Ralph Corderoy [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is
Brain-
9920 11:37 To:pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)bo RSS feeds
$ sortm last:6
$ scan last:6
9915 05:51 "T-Alerts Notific Red Line Braintree Alert
9916 14:32 Ralph Corderoy [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is
Brain-
9917 11:37 To:pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)bo RSS feeds
9918 12:37 To:pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)bo RSS feeds
9919 12:40 Sally Moulton [arlington] Solarize Mass reps speak tonight,
9920 12:19 David Levine Re: [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is
Br
$ sortm -textfield subject last:6
$ scan last:6
9915 05:51 "T-Alerts Notific Red Line Braintree Alert
9916 14:32 Ralph Corderoy [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is
Brain-
9917 12:19 David Levine Re: [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is
Br
9918 11:37 To:pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)bo RSS feeds
9919 12:37 To:pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)bo RSS feeds
9920 12:40 Sally Moulton [arlington] Solarize Mass reps speak tonight,
this isn't subject-major, but that's okay for my purposes: having the
threads sorted in thread commencement order is actually more useful than
alphabetic.
=---------------------
paul fox, pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)boston(_dot_)ma(_dot_)us (arlington, ma,
where it's 51.4 degrees)
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
--
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers