>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 >reproducible.
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 all. But I can't claim to be the arbiter of how people use nmh; what do others think? --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
