Hoi, split this topic from the previous sequence mail.
[2020-03-22 13:31] Philipp Takacs <phil...@bureaucracy.de> > [2020-03-22 07:53] markus schnalke <mei...@marmaro.de> > > [2020-03-22 00:21] Philipp Takacs <phil...@bureaucracy.de> > > > > > > Not sure if this works, but > > > for this I would suggest to add a -preserve switch to refile instead of > > > using previous-sequence for this, like nmh has done. > > > > The `-preserve' switch changes how the refiling works in nmh ... > > A sorry mixed the switches up, I mean the -retainsequences switch. > The man page says following: > As message sequences are folder-specific, moving the message from the > source folder > removes it from all its sequences in that folder. -retainsequences > adds it to those > same sequences in the destination folder, creating any that don't > exist. This adding > does not apply for the “cur” sequence. > > I like this feature, but this is an other discussion. I like it too. Mmh does not act as expected concerning sequences on refiles. The length of the switch name is horrible, however. But actually such a functionality should need no switch in mmh. It is correct that sequences belong to messages not to folders (despite being stored within the folder), thus on refiles they should move with the message. This is how it should be. (Yes, it adds further write accesses to .mh_sequence files ...) In nmh every change needs switches so that no user ever needs to change their setup. Mmh, in contrast can change if there is a better way to do things. That's the whole reason of mmh's existance. I think the sequence behavior on refiles should be either this way or that way. I see no need for a switch here. meillo
