Re: [Nmh-workers] exciting new stuff for 2.0

[Harald Geyer]

> > 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