< :the previous in number
^ :the list in numerical order
> :the next in number
P :the previous (in thread)
N :the next (in thread)
|<:the top of this thread
>|:the next thread
^ :the parent (reply-to)
_:the child (an article replying to this)
>:the elder article having the same parent
<:the youger article having the same parent
---:split window and show thread lists
| :split window (vertically) and show thread lists
~ :close the thread frame
.:the index
..:the index of indices
gabriele renzi wrote:
> Devin Mullins ha scritto:
>
>> An advantage that the web forum adds is that it sorts threads by date
>> of most recent posting, rather than first post. (I wish Thunderbird
>> had that option.)
>
> is'nt that what you get by clicking on "date"?
In unthreaded mode, all the posts are intermingled. Right now, I'm
looking at Re: Rmagic 1.9, Re: Heirarchy T.., Re: [ANN] Ferret, Re:
rubycocoa, Re: Forum, etc. in the message index pane. I prefer,
actually, to sort by Order Received because senders' mail clients often
lie (or are confused) about the current datetime.
In threaded mode, posts are grouped together and put in pretty threads.
However, a thread that was created at the dawn of time stays at the very
bottom my list, even if it was just replied to a minute ago. Since I
only read about 30% of ruby-talk, that means I'd never notice it, 'cause
it's just another old unread message. Rather, if threads were sorted by
*most* recent posting, I'd see it as I scroll by the new posts, and get
to decide what I want to do with it. (You can argue about the utility of
this feature with yourself, but it is [AFAIK] different from what
Thunderbird provides.)
Devin