Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!CORNELLA!NJG
From: NJG@CORNELLA.BITNET (Nick Gimbrone)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Subject: Re: Two more items for the wish list
Message-ID: <MAILBOOK%90011616594984@RICEVM1.BITNET>
Date: 16 Jan 90 22:55:56 GMT
Sender: MAIL/MAILBOOK subscription list <MAILBOOK@RICEVM1>
Reply-To: MAIL/MAILBOOK subscription list <MAILBOOK@RICEVM1>
Lines: 9
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway
In-Reply-To:  Message of Tue, 16 Jan 90 14:27:09 CET from <MAINT@DERRZE1>

On Tue, 16 Jan 90 14:27:09 CET Rainer M Woitok said:
>2. When you sort  according to subjects, the resulting  sequence will be
>   eg "*A",  " A",  "*B", " B"  etc., which is  quite ok.  Now consider,
I'm not sure I agree about this being ok. Since "*A" and " A" have the
same subject, but one is/should be written after the other I'd rather
that the "*" or " " column not be included in the sort and that the
GMT date/time field be used as a secondary sort field (such that " A"
always preceeded "*A").
I've not verified how the code is written/commented to work :-).