Re: [Nmh-workers] Gripe About Pick Man Page and New Feature Request

[Ken Hornstein]

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