Kero wrote:

> > 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.)

> That's what you would use scoring for, or delete a thread that is not
> interesting, or other ways of archiving. mutt provides me with TAB to
> go to New mails (or old&unread if there's no New mail).

I agree.

> I read ruby-lang on usenet, because I prefer pulling for such a
> (reasonably) high volume list. gmail is out because it represents
> threads as lists, not as trees.

Yes, I've long been thinking of reinstalling slrn and going the usenet
way for this list instead.  But as more and more usenet servers are
closing, it really hasn't been an alternative.  It'd be nice if Google'd
provide an NNTP service.

The really perverted way of reading ruby-lang is reading it through
GMANE's NNTP server :-).

> IMHO, it's in the tools, not in another archive that holds the same
> content.

Yes, so far that's what I've been thinking for every suggestion for
improvement (to the forum) that has come up in this thread.  Still,
perhaps not everyone is comfortable in using mutt.  I wouldn't know why,
but that may be so.  I'm uncomfortable in using anything _but_ mutt, but
that's me.

        nikolai

-- 
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}