[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is Brain-Damaged.

From: Ken Hornstein
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is Brain-Damaged.
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:23:26 -0400

>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

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

But I can't claim to be the arbiter of how people use nmh; what do others


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]