solution to evolution problem

[Aaron Konstam]

On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 22:12 -0500, Robert Locke wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 13:23 +1030, Tim wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 17:23 -0500, Robert Locke wrote:
> > > But, one thing I have learned to NOT do, is to set my sorting on the
> > > Date column.  I have no down or up arrow on the date column. 
> > 
> > As one of those YMMV moments, I have threading turned on, *and* messages
> > sorted on date (newest topmost).  Things are working fine for me.
> > 
> 
> It's only a "problem" for me if I delete the first message of a thread,
> though, admittedly, I tended to sort it "oldest" first....  Sorting
> appears to be done on the first message in the thread.  When that first
> message in the thread is deleted, the remainder of the thread is
> "relocated" to an appropriate spot.  But if I don't have "date sorting"
> turned on, it leaves things where they are....  Does that make sense?
> 
> --Rob

Sure I believe you but I want the oldest messages first so I can read
messages in the order they arrive, Not hiding deleted messages makes
that possible. That is, ascending order in mail and threads not
relocated. But others may want different behavior and that is OK with
me.
-- 
Aaron Konstam <akonstam at sbcglobal.net>