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
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
