Thus spake Ken Hornstein: > >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?
Speaking for myself only: I can't recall a single time in 15 years of using nmh that I've wanted to use sortm to sort less than a complete folder. -- J. -- J. _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
