On 2012-02-01, Hiren Panchasara <hiren.panchasara@gmail.com> wrote:

What I want is:

1) threaded mails.
2) If a new message arrives in a thread, that thread should be brought
to the top.
3) But the new message itself should be the last one in that
particular thread. Right now, it sticks right below the very first
message of that thread.
If this is new message is a reply to a message 'x' on thread, it
should come (below) 'x'.

My settings (which is not working):
set sort="threads"
set sort_browser="reverse-date"
set sort_aux="reverse-last-date-received"

Sorry for reviving an old conversation, but I would like to know if this
issue has been solved by anyone, or if there is a formal request or bug
report.

I think it makes sense to bring to the top the email thread containing
the new message, but with that new message being the last one (bottom)
of that particular thread. It's the way a popular email client like
GMail handles it, and it's the way that the newsreader I'm using (slrn)
handles it when I tell it to sort by thread + date.

I'm not saying that's the correct way, I am open to a different approach.
My preference is threading for inline posting, but I'm not sure if this approach is more suitable for usenet than for email; and I say this
because email normally won't include my own messages in the thread, so
in that case the only advantage of threads in email will be to collapse
them in order to save space inside the screen, rather that showing the
full thread.

Thank you in advance for any hint or help.
--
Héctor A. Abreu

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2017-11-23, (Héctor A. Abreu) <invalid@invalid.com> <> wrote:

On 2012-02-01, Hiren Panchasara <hiren.panchasara@gmail.com> wrote:

What I want is:

1) threaded mails.
2) If a new message arrives in a thread, that thread should be brought
to the top.
3) But the new message itself should be the last one in that
particular thread. Right now, it sticks right below the very first
message of that thread.
If this is new message is a reply to a message 'x' on thread, it
should come (below) 'x'.

My settings (which is not working):
set sort="threads"
set sort_browser="reverse-date"
set sort_aux="reverse-last-date-received"

Sorry for reviving an old conversation, but I would like to know if this issue has been solved by anyone, or if there is a formal request or bug report.

I think it makes sense to bring to the top the email thread containing
the new message, but with that new message being the last one (bottom)
of that particular thread. It's the way a popular email client like
GMail handles it, and it's the way that the newsreader I'm using (slrn) handles it when I tell it to sort by thread + date.

Alright, now it's working with the following values in .muttrc:

set sort = threads
set sort_aux = reverse-last-date-received
set index_format="%4C %3M%Z %{%b %d} %-15.15L (%?l?%4l&%4c?) %s"

Threads can be folded/unfolded normally with Esc-v and Esc-V.

The only difference with the original thread is $sort_browser, which I
didn't include. Not sure if that was the problem, I just know that it's
working now.

I'm not saying that's the correct way, I am open to a different approach.
My preference is threading for inline posting, but I'm not sure if this approach is more suitable for usenet than for email; and I say this
because email normally won't include my own messages in the thread, so
in that case the only advantage of threads in email will be to collapse
them in order to save space inside the screen, rather that showing the
full thread.

I'm still wondering if it's possible to show my own messages inside
threads in my INBOX without the need of copying all my sent messages to
my INBOX. Basically, to show my own messages only if they are part of a
thread.
--
Héctor A. Abreu

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 2017-11-23, (Héctor A. Abreu) <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

On 2012-02-01, Hiren Panchasara <hiren.panchasara@gmail.com> wrote:

What I want is:

1) threaded mails.
2) If a new message arrives in a thread, that thread should be brought
to the top.
3) But the new message itself should be the last one in that
particular thread. Right now, it sticks right below the very first
message of that thread.
If this is new message is a reply to a message 'x' on thread, it
should come (below) 'x'.

My settings (which is not working):
set sort="threads"
set sort_browser="reverse-date"
set sort_aux="reverse-last-date-received"

Sorry for reviving an old conversation, but I would like to know if this issue has been solved by anyone, or if there is a formal request or bug report.

Reviving it was the right thing to do. I don't know the answer to
your question, though. Sorry.

I think it makes sense to bring to the top the email thread containing
the new message, but with that new message being the last one (bottom)
of that particular thread. It's the way a popular email client like
GMail handles it, and it's the way that the newsreader I'm using (slrn) handles it when I tell it to sort by thread + date.

That's how I configure slrn, too. That, plus scoring my own postings high,
and scoring replies to my postings high -- that's my slrn user interface.

I'm not saying that's the correct way, I am open to a different approach.
My preference is threading for inline posting,

What does "inline posting" mean? (Both your posting and the OP's 2012
posting are sometimes less clear than they could have been.)

but I'm not sure if this approach is more suitable for usenet than
for email; and I say this because email normally won't include my
own messages in the thread, so in that case the only advantage of
threads in email will be to collapse them in order to save space
inside the screen, rather that showing the full thread.

I suspect it's not just for Usenet. Showing complete threads would be
good for mail, too -- at least when you have long mail discussions[0].

A year ago or so, I posted here about my intention to implement
virtual mail folders in Mutt, so I could look at the union of !,
=read and =sent, and see the actual mail thread. Sadly, that
project never happened.

I also feel it's time that someone takes another look at mail, and
creates something that's as obviously superior to what we have today
-- just like Git was obviously superior to Subversion. Mutt is good,
but my gut feeling is it can be done in a radically different, better
way.

(And with "different", I mean the user interface. I still want RFC
compliance, a console interface, mbox support, OpenPGP support and all
that.)

/Jorgen

[0] Granted, few seem to have long mail discussions these days.

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2017-11-23, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:

On Thu, 2017-11-23, (Héctor A. Abreu) <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

Sorry for reviving an old conversation, but I would like to know if this
issue has been solved by anyone, or if there is a formal request or bug
report.

Reviving it was the right thing to do. I don't know the answer to
your question, though. Sorry.

I think it's working with the following values in .muttrc:

set sort = threads
set sort_aux = reverse-last-date-received
set index_format="%4C %3M%Z %{%b %d} %-15.15L (%?l?%4l&%4c?) %s"

I'm not saying that's the correct way, I am open to a different approach.
My preference is threading for inline posting,

What does "inline posting" mean? (Both your posting and the OP's 2012 posting are sometimes less clear than they could have been.)

I meant "inline replying" as a posting style, sorry. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

but I'm not sure if this approach is more suitable for usenet than
for email; and I say this because email normally won't include my
own messages in the thread, so in that case the only advantage of
threads in email will be to collapse them in order to save space
inside the screen, rather that showing the full thread.

I suspect it's not just for Usenet. Showing complete threads would be
good for mail, too -- at least when you have long mail discussions[0].

A year ago or so, I posted here about my intention to implement
virtual mail folders in Mutt, so I could look at the union of !,
=read and =sent, and see the actual mail thread. Sadly, that
project never happened.

That would be awsome, I guess one would need some knowledge on C and
S-Lang to contribute. I hope that conversation will be revived too.

Thank you for your reply.
--
Héctor A. Abreu

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 2017-11-24, (Héctor A. Abreu) <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

On 2017-11-23, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:

...

A year ago or so, I posted here about my intention to implement
virtual mail folders in Mutt, so I could look at the union of !,
=read and =sent, and see the actual mail thread. Sadly, that
project never happened.

That would be awsome, I guess one would need some knowledge on C and
S-Lang to contribute. I hope that conversation will be revived too.

Not S-Lang, but yes, you'd have to be good at rewriting pretty
convoluted C code without breaking anything.

... to do what I wanted to do. Note that there may be other ways to
get approximately the same effect. I think I remember someone posting
about Maildir-based ideas ...

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)