Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!RICEVM1!SCHAFER
From: SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Richard A. Schafer)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Subject: Re: Two more items for the wish list
Message-ID: <900116.174334.CST.SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
Date: 16 Jan 90 23:43:34 GMT
Sender: MAIL/MAILBOOK subscription list <MAILBOOK@RICEVM1>
Reply-To: MAIL/MAILBOOK subscription list <MAILBOOK@RICEVM1>
Organization: Networking and Computing Systems, Rice University
Lines: 17
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway
In-Reply-To:  Message of Tue, 16 Jan 90 17:55:56 EST from <NJG@CORNELLA>

On Tue, 16 Jan 90 17:55:56 EST Nick Gimbrone said:
>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 :-).
Not only do I believe that this is *not* OK, as far as I can determine
that's not the way the code actually works.  As far as I can verify,
" A" is always sorted before "*A" for precisely the reason that you
want replies to follow the original.  If it doesn't work that way
(and so far as I can tell it does), it's a bug.

Richard