[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Suggested new switches for sortm: -recon and --norecon
From: |
norm |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Suggested new switches for sortm: -recon and --norecon |
Date: |
Sun, 02 Mar 2014 07:24:32 -0800 |
Ralph Corderoy <address@hidden> writes:
>Hi David,
>
>> > sort(1) has this functionality. It's -c for check. -check? Don't
>> > see why we should deviate.
>>
>> sortm already has a -check, for a slightly different purpose. It was
>> recently added, though, so maybe its meaning could be changed?
>
>Ah, OK.
>
>sortm always issues a warning for each message that is missing a
>"Date:" field, has a "Date:" field that cannot be parsed, or has a
>format error in any header field. With the -check switch, sortm
>inhibits all modifications to the folder if there are any such
>messages, and exits with non-zero status. With the default of
>-nocheck, sortm sorts messages with a missing or invalid "Date:"
>field using their file modification times.
>
>-wantdate?
I agree. To be explicit:
Given that sortm is closer to sort than to make and your observation that sort
has -c, --check for what I suggested as -recon, it would make sense for
-wantdate to mean what -check now means
-check to mean what I proposed for -recon
That is:
-wantdate would mean that it was an error and that no messages would
be moved if any relevant message did not have a date field that could
be parsed or had a a format error in any header field.
-check would mean don't move any messages
Norman Shapiro