On Fri,May 23 09:22:AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> I have no idea if it is normal. Besides, that should be irrelevant. Does it > work for you? If so, why? When not, why not? Does not work for me, no. I'm trying to get 'date' to be the main sorting criteria. In the example I provided, ideally, the two messages from the 18th, would be at the bottom of the thread, with the very newest one, May 18,2:28PM as the last one listed. > The question is: why date-received instead of date? For me, "date" is the > relevant criterion. Yes, it can be date, though that yields the same results. > >Here's an example of how a recent thread, in this mailing > >list, is presented, in my mutt index. > > > > Sat,May 17 12:19:PM Karl Voit Writing a wrapper for the > > editor: mutt aborts in-between > > Sat,May 17 02:51:PM Kevin J. McCarthy ├─> > > Sun,May 18 04:14:AM Chris Green │ └─> > > Sat,May 17 05:04:PM Mike Glover └─> > > Sat,May 17 05:59:PM Karl Voit └─> > > Sat,May 17 09:51:PM Cameron Simpson ├─> > > Sun,May 18 02:58:AM Karl Voit │ └─> > > Sat,May 17 07:02:PM Gary Johnson └─> > > I'm not sure what you dislike in this listing. if the entire thread was unread, and I needed to get to the three newest messages, I would have had to bounce around a bit. If this was a 22 message count thread, it would have been a bit harsh. In that case, I re-sort the index, non-threaded, and that way, I'm able to get the actual chronological order of messages, but, then I lose the threaded advantage. -- GG
