> > >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.
Same here, except since '89. Although, to be honest, I probably didn't use at all until about ten years ago. Seems like the real problem is that "sortm" shoulda been named "sortf". But I assume that ship sailed a long time ago. steve -- _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
