On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 07:08:42PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote:
> ===CONFIDENTIAL===
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:14:20PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > > I'm trying to understand if it's 'normal' (wink: Derek
Oh ah. Yes, well, being totally sober when I replied to this, I
comp
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:01:47AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 23May2014 19:08, Guy Gold wrote:
> Confidential? Really?
Only if you really want it to be...(send hooks, work in progress)
> >Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of
> >
Cameron's message from 7:22PM. At that point, I thought - that's
because your responding directly to my message. Then, I
refreshed my index for some other reason, and the index shifted
to what you see now:
Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of threads,
order i
right in this current thread, when I opened the
mutt mailbox, your messages, from 4:14PM, was right above
Cameron's message from 7:22PM. At that point, I thought - that's
because your responding directly to my message. Then, I
refreshed my index for some other reason, and the index shifted
to
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:05:13PM -0500, David Champion wrote:
> > Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of
> > threads, order in question
> > Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:22:07PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─>
> > Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08
Hi Guy,
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote:
> I'm trying to understand if it's 'normal' (wink: Derek
> Martin, if you copy) to have most of my threads sorted
> not-really-through-date-received.
Why are you winking at me?
As for your question:
> Sat,May 17 12:19:PM K
the sort.
> It looks like, once authors of messages write to others (rather
> than replying one after another, chronologically), that's when the
> mix-up happens.
>
>
> Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of
> threads, order in question
>
Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:19:42PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o Display of threads,
order in question
Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:22:07PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─>
Thu, May 22, 2014 at 08:54:23PM EDT To mutt-users@mutt.o └─>
Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:37:48PM EDT Cameron Simpson └─
* On 23 May 2014, Guy Gold wrote:
>
> That, pretty much, is what I'm trying to get to, only reversed,
> with the newest message, on the bottom. I wonder if other parts
> of my .muttrc breaking it.
For threading, you need sort=threads. Sort_aux is the only variable.
Reverse- and last- are modu
On Fri,May 23 11:37: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?
> >
> >>>
> >>>Sat,May 17 12:19:PM Karl VoitWriting a wrapper for the
> >>> editor: mutt aborts in-betw
On 22May2014 20:54, Guy Gold wrote:
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 th
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
On 22May2014 17:19, Guy Gold wrote:
Here are the relevant parts from .muutrc: set sort=threads
set sort_aux=reverse-last-date-received
I use:
sort=reverse-threads
sort_aux=last-date
for most folders. (Spam folders I sort by subject, it groups better for mass
discarding.)
FOr me, this
Greetings, mutt users.
Here are the relevant parts from .muutrc: set sort=threads
set sort_aux=reverse-last-date-received
The above places the thread with the newest message on top,
with the next newest under it, an so on. Reading through
.muttrc, It's not the best way to sort, but, I got used
14 matches
Mail list logo
