* On 23 May 2014, Guy Gold wrote: > > That is all true. > But, I cannot explain some of the behaviour I'm getting. > Notice the two threads here: > The first one, is sorted very well according to what I expect. > > The second one has some flaws with regards to the sort. > It looks like, once authors of messages write to others (rather > than replying one after another, chronologically), that's when the > mix-up happens. > > > Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of > threads, order in question > Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:22:07PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─> > Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:54:23PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o └─> > Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:37:48PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─> > Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:19:11AM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o └─> > Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:22:54AM EDT David Champion └─> > > > Sat, May 17, 2014 at 02:51:40PM EDT Kevin J. McCarthy ┬─>Re: Writing a > wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between > Sun, May 18, 2014 at 04:14:23AM EDT Chris Green │ └─> > Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:04:29PM EDT Mike Glover └─>Re: Writing a > wrapper for the editor: mutt aborts in-between > Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:59:53PM EDT Karl Voit └─> > Sat, May 17, 2014 at 09:51:00PM EDT Cameron Simpson ├─> > Sun, May 18, 2014 at 02:58:31AM EDT Karl Voit │ └─> > Sat, May 17, 2014 at 07:02:19PM EDT Gary Johnson └─>
These both look correct, to me, for sort_aux=reverse-last-date[-received]. Whether sort=threads or sort=reverse-threads is irrelevant in this case, since you're showing only one thread. What looks wrong to you? -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
