Ralph Corderoy <ralph(_at_)inputplus(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> writes:
Hi David,
sort(1) has this functionality. It's -c for check. -check? Don't
see why we should deviate.
sortm already has a -check, for a slightly different purpose. It was
recently added, though, so maybe its meaning could be changed?
Ah, OK.
sortm always issues a warning for each message that is missing a
"Date:" field, has a "Date:" field that cannot be parsed, or has a
format error in any header field. With the -check switch, sortm
inhibits all modifications to the folder if there are any such
messages, and exits with non-zero status. With the default of
-nocheck, sortm sorts messages with a missing or invalid "Date:"
field using their file modification times.
-wantdate?
I agree. To be explicit:
Given that sortm is closer to sort than to make and your observation that sort
has -c, --check for what I suggested as -recon, it would make sense for
-wantdate to mean what -check now means
-check to mean what I proposed for -recon
That is:
-wantdate would mean that it was an error and that no messages would
be moved if any relevant message did not have a date field that could
be parsed or had a a format error in any header field.
-check would mean don't move any messages
Norman Shapiro
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers