[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sorting uniquely by message-id
From: |
Ralph Corderoy |
Subject: |
Re: sorting uniquely by message-id |
Date: |
Sat, 19 Sep 2020 12:08:18 +0100 |
Hi Michael,
> I really want to just keep the copy that went through the list,
> because that's the one that went into the public archive, and replies
> will work better on that version. But, sometimes some of the messages
> get copied to me only, and can't lose them.
So for all emails with the same message-id field, keep just the one with
a list-id field but if none of them have a list-id field then keep all
of them.
> I realized I don't want to change the order of the folder. Instead,
> I am doing:
>
> scan -format '%5(msg),%{message-id},%<(addr{List-Id})%>' +inbox'
>
> and then process this with Perl to do the right thing....
>
> if(defined($msgnum{$msgid})) {
> if(defined($msglist{$msgid})) {
> @todelete << $msgnum;
> } else {
> $msglist{$msgid} = $listid;
> push(@todelete, $msgnum{$msgid});
> }
> } else {
> $msgnum{$msgid} = $msgnum;
> }
Doesn't that add empty $listids to %msglist? Consider this input.
1,m,li@foo $msgnum{'m'} = 1
2,m $msglist{'m'} = ''; push(@todelete, 1);
> 156 %09/16 To:"Rob Wilton asdf.ietf.or Re: [Asdf] Robert Wilton's
> Block
> 164 %09/17 Carsten Bormann asdf.ietf.or Re: [Asdf] Robert Wilton's
> Block
> 175 %09/17 "Rob Wilton RE: [Asdf] Robert Wilton's
> Block
> - 176 %09/17 "Rob Wilton RE: [Asdf] Robert Wilton's
> Block
> 177 %09/17 "Rob Wilton asdf.ietf.or Re: [Asdf] Robert Wilton's
> Block
> - 178 %09/17 Carsten Bormann Re: [Asdf] Robert Wilton's
> Block
> 179 %09/17 Carsten Bormann asdf.ietf.or Re: [Asdf] Robert Wilton's
> Block
> - 187 %09/17 David Kemp Re: [Asdf] Robert
> Wilton's Block
> 188 %09/17 David Kemp asdf.ietf.or Re: [Asdf] Robert
> Wilton's Block
> - 200 %09/17 Carsten Bormann Re: [Asdf] Robert
> Wilton's Block
> 201 %09/17 Carsten Bormann asdf.ietf.or Re: [Asdf] Robert
> Wilton's Block
> - 180 %09/17 "Rob Wilton RE: [Asdf] Robert Wilton's
> Block
> 181 %09/17 "Rob Wilton asdf.ietf.or Re: [Asdf] Robert Wilton's
> Block
> - 184 %09/17 Carsten Bormann asdf.ietf.or Re: [Asdf] Robert Wilton's
> Block
> 185 %09/17 Carsten Bormann Re: [Asdf] Robert Wilton's
> Block
> - 189 %09/17 "Rob Wilton RE: [Asdf] Robert
> Wilton's Block
> 190 %09/17 "Rob Wilton asdf.ietf.or Re: [Asdf] Robert
> Wilton's Block
> - 193 %09/17 Alexander Pelov Re: [Asdf] Robert
> Wilton's Block
> 194 %09/17 Alexander Pelov asdf.ietf.or Re: [Asdf] Robert
> Wilton's Block
> - 196 %09/17 Barry Leiba Re: [Asdf] Robert
> Wilton's Block
> 197 %09/17 Barry Leiba Re: [Asdf] Robert
> Wilton's Block
> - 198 %09/17 "Rob Wilton asdf.ietf.or Re: [Asdf] Robert
> Wilton's Block
> 199 %09/17 "Rob Wilton RE: [Asdf] Robert
> Wilton's Block
> 327 %09/18 Carsten Bormann Re: [Asdf] Robert
> Wilton's Block
Given
$ grep -i sequence-negation ~/.mh_profile
sequence-negation: not
something like this might do.
mark -seq dup -del all
pick -seq li --list-id 'z*'
scan -forma '%{message-id}' li |
while read -r mi; do
pick -nozero -seq dup --message-id "$mi" notli
done
> I think that I ought to use something other than , that can't appear
> in any of the relevant fields. ASCII defined this "FS" character
> (ASCII 29 or something), and I wonder why we don't use it more
> often... i wonder if the format spec ought to make this easily
> accessible?
US should be used for the lowest level, working up through RS and GS to
FS last; ascii(7). Here's US.
$ fmttest -forma '%{from}'$'\c_''%{date}' -width 0 . | sed -n l
Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>\037Fri, 18 Sep 2020 16:36:15 -0\
400$
$
--
Cheers, Ralph.
- sorting uniquely by message-id, Michael Richardson, 2020/09/18
- Re: sorting uniquely by message-id, kat, 2020/09/18
- Re: sorting uniquely by message-id,
Ralph Corderoy <=
- Re: sorting uniquely by message-id, spaceman, 2020/09/19
- Re: sorting uniquely by message-id, kat, 2020/09/19
- Re: sorting uniquely by message-id, Ralph Corderoy, 2020/09/20
- Re: sorting uniquely by message-id, Krullen Van De Trap, 2020/09/20
- Re: sorting uniquely by message-id, Wolfgang Denk, 2020/09/21
- Re: sorting uniquely by message-id, Krullen Van De Trap, 2020/09/21
- Re: sorting uniquely by message-id, Wolfgang Denk, 2020/09/21
- Re: sorting uniquely by message-id, Paul Fox, 2020/09/21
- Re: sorting uniquely by message-id, Wolfgang Denk, 2020/09/21
- Re: sorting uniquely by message-id, Ralph Corderoy, 2020/09/21