[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ..
From: |
David Levine |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...) |
Date: |
Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:09:53 -0500 |
Norm wrote:
> % folder +/tmp/inbox
> /tmp/inbox+ has 20 messages (1-75).
> % sortm
> sortm: can't parse date field in message 66, continuing...
> sortm: can't parse date field in message 67, continuing...
> sortm: can't parse date field in message 68, continuing...
> sortm: can't parse date field in message 70, continuing...
> sortm: can't parse date field in message 71, continuing...
> sortm: can't parse date field in message 72, continuing...
>
> So I know, that messages 66-72 had a missing or badly
> formatted date field and that sortm plowed on anyway. But
> what happened to these messages. I would have guessed that
> they would be left in place. But that's wrong. In this
> instance, at least, they wound up at the end of
> +/tmp/inbox. Did the programmer know that? I don't
> know. But whatever he did know should have been passed on
> to me.
>
> One dodge which might sometimes be useful, would be to put
> the details in the man page and have the
> continuing... message cite the man page.
In this case, the details are already in the man page:
With the default of -nocheck, sortm sorts messages with a
missing or invalid "Date:" field using their file
modification times.
I think the warning message is OK, and I prefer brevity.
Or would you prefer:
sortm: can't parse date field in message 66, see sortm(1) man page,
continuing...
Or:
sortm: can't parse date field in message 66, using file mod time,
continuing...
Or?
David
- [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), norm, 2013/01/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), David Levine, 2013/01/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), norm, 2013/01/14
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), norm, 2013/01/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...),
David Levine <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), Paul Vixie, 2013/01/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), Ralph Corderoy, 2013/01/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), norm, 2013/01/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), Bill Wohler, 2013/01/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), David Levine, 2013/01/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), Ralph Corderoy, 2013/01/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), Paul Fox, 2013/01/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), Valdis . Kletnieks, 2013/01/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), David Levine, 2013/01/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...), David Levine, 2013/01/27
- Prev by Date:
Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...)
- Next by Date:
Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...)
- Previous by thread:
Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...)
- Next by thread:
Re: [Nmh-workers] The function, void admonish (char *what, char *fmt, ...)
- Index(es):