Re: [Nmh-workers] sortm's Default of all is Brain-Damaged.

[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?

--Ken