On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 16:30 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> IMHO the ordering should take into account messages deleted but not
> expunged, such that merely deleting a message should not reorder
> anything.
Hi,
it currently sorts only messages you see. Deleted (or Junk) messages
are s
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 12:05 -0700, Craig wrote:
> Is this kind of behaviour an option somewhere, or should I file an
> enhancement request somewhere?
Hi,
there is no such option. Note the issue can be more complicated when
the folder receives new messages, or basically any changes from th
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 08:54 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> --> Joe1 v help with thisToday 00:57
> Bob1 help with this Today 02:43
> Joe2 v help with this Today 01:14
> Bob2 help with thisToday 02:52
>
> Basically, shouldn't the algor
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 15:18 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> I would have thought there is a case for saying that the tree
> shouldn't be re-ordered whilst you remain in the folder.
>
> I must admit that I find the re-ordering annoying in other circumstances
> - when a new email is received, the thread
>
> It would be weird to treat your mail in "blocks" of retrieved messages,
> and only sort them within those blocks so that messages in
> newly-retrieved blocks aren't added to previously retrieved blocks,
> unless you exit/re-enter the folder to get a total reorder. Maybe I
> don't understand
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 12:04 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > Would it help if you turned on "show deleted messages" (or off "hide
> > deleted messages") - then it wouldn't ever need to re-order the
> list?
>
> Possibly... but I don't like to show my deleted messages :)
IMHO the ordering should take i
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 15:18 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > In the above situation, I use C-d to delete the current message. I
> > thought the problem was that the cursor then skipped the next message
> > but what happens is more subtle than that: the cursor does correctly go
> > to the next message
> Aha! Interesting! I just got it to happen again and noticed something
> important. I had a thread like this:
>
> --> Joe v help with thisToday 00:57
> Bob help with this Today 02:43
> Joev help with this Today 01:14
> Bob
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 07:50 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> I'll follow up if/when I get any fresh detail.
Aha! Interesting! I just got it to happen again and noticed something
important. I had a thread like this:
--> Joe v help with thisToday 00:57
Bob help with this
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 07:52 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> it uses the tree, basically what you see in UI, positioning based on
> the selected row index. There is some influence of collapsed threads,
> usually above the selected message. I recall a bug with a race
> condition on the positioning, two
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 17:19 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Next daft newbie-user question... how do I make that the default for
> *all* folders instead of having to change them one by one?
Hi,
the more general approach is not that obvious, which is a pita.
Instead of saving your view as
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 13:20 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> It would be interesting to know what the
> "next-message" code uses for ordering.
>
Hi,
it uses the tree, basically what you see in UI, positioning based on
the selected row index. There is some influence of collapsed threads,
usual
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 18:05 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> I don't know about that, but you can save a custom view (including sort
> order) by setting the folder how you want and then doing View -> Current
> View -> Save view. Then it's reasonably trivial to set the correct
> view of a folder when yo
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 18:05 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> >
> > Next daft newbie-user question... how do I make that the default
> > for
> > *all* folders instead of having to change them one by one?
>
> I don't know about that, but you can save a custom view (including
> sort order) by setting t
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 18:05 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > Next daft newbie-user question... how do I make that the default
> for
> > *all* folders instead of having to change them one by one?
>
> I don't know about that, but you can save a custom view (including
> sort
> order) by setting the fold
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 13:20 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > I don't have a custom sort order, and I also see the saner
> behaviour
> > you describe, Patrick. If I delete a message, focus moves to the
> next
> > message below it in the display. Not the next newer message in the
> > mailbix which may
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 17:11 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 17:08 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 17:05 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My main issue with the sorting, FWIW, is the fact that we sort
> > > > on the Date: header and not the time th
>
> Next daft newbie-user question... how do I make that the default for
> *all* folders instead of having to change them one by one?
I don't know about that, but you can save a custom view (including sort
order) by setting the folder how you want and then doing View -> Current
View -> Save vie
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 16:56 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I don't have a custom sort order, and I also see the saner behaviour
> you describe, Patrick. If I delete a message, focus moves to the next
> message below it in the display. Not the next newer message in the
> mailbix which may be els
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 17:08 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 17:05 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > >
> > > My main issue with the sorting, FWIW, is the fact that we sort
> > > on the Date: header and not the time the message was actually
> > > *delivered*. So when we get a misdate
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 17:08 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 17:05 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > >
> > > My main issue with the sorting, FWIW, is the fact that we sort
> > > on the Date: header and not the time the message was actually
> > > *delivered*. So when we get a misdate
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 17:05 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> >
> > My main issue with the sorting, FWIW, is the fact that we sort on the
> > Date: header and not the time the message was actually *delivered*. So
> > when we get a misdated mail from the future, it sits as the "newest"
> > message in t
>
> My main issue with the sorting, FWIW, is the fact that we sort on the
> Date: header and not the time the message was actually *delivered*. So
> when we get a misdated mail from the future, it sits as the "newest"
> message in the mailbox until the world finally catches up with it. Or
> w
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 16:44 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 08:21 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > > I have folders ordered by Received (Descending, i.e. the oldest
> > thread
> > > first) and this problem doesn't happen to me. I suspect the
> > > problem has to do with wanti
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 08:21 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > I have folders ordered by Received (Descending, i.e. the oldest
> thread
> > first) and this problem doesn't happen to me. I suspect the problem
> > has to do with wanting the most recent thread (i.e. the thread with
> > the most recent messa
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 11:31 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> It's never been completely clear to me what these ordering really mean
> when combined with threading.
I'm not so worried about the order in which different threads are
displayed. But within a single thread it seems to me that whatev
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 15:00 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> Hi all. This has bugged me for years but never enough to complain about
> it (until now, I guess :)). I wonder if it's just me, or just my setup,
> or what. I'm currently using Evolution 3.12.10 but I've seen this for a
> number of releases
Hi all. This has bugged me for years but never enough to complain about
it (until now, I guess :)). I wonder if it's just me, or just my setup,
or what. I'm currently using Evolution 3.12.10 but I've seen this for a
number of releases (maybe always?)
I order my folders by Received (Ascending) s
28 matches
Mail list logo
