On 10/23/09 07:19, Ant wrote:
> On 10/22/2009 6:47 AM PT, Mark Hansen typed:
>
> I noticed a design flaw? If the e-mail uses the same titles, it seems to
> organize into that same thread even though they are not the same, just
> the same titles.
E-mail doesn't have the Reference
On 10/22/2009 6:47 AM PT, Mark Hansen typed:
I noticed a design flaw? If the e-mail uses the same titles, it seems to
organize into that same thread even though they are not the same, just
the same titles.
E-mail doesn't have the References header, so I'm pretty sure it must
thread via the sub
On 10/21/09 22:39, Ant wrote:
> On 10/21/2009 7:34 AM PT, Mark Hansen typed:
>
>>> I noticed a design flaw? If the e-mail uses the same titles, it seems to
>>> organize into that same thread even though they are not the same, just
>>> the same titles.
>>
>> E-mail doesn't have the References he
On 10/21/2009 7:34 AM PT, Mark Hansen typed:
I noticed a design flaw? If the e-mail uses the same titles, it seems to
organize into that same thread even though they are not the same, just
the same titles.
E-mail doesn't have the References header, so I'm pretty sure it must
thread via the su
Mark Hansen wrote:
I wonder if SM uses that to thread e-mail messages? I would think
it would. Does it then use the subject line for messages that don't
have it? I guess I could test it and see...
Well, I just tried it and it worked. I sent an e-mail with a subject
of "Foo", then I sent a secon
On 10/21/09 11:12, Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 10/21/09 09:24, Martin Freitag wrote:
>> Mark Hansen schrieb:
>>> On 10/20/09 21:50, Ant wrote:
I noticed a design flaw? If the e-mail uses the same titles, it seems to
organize into that same thread even though they are not the same, just
>>
On 10/21/09 09:24, Martin Freitag wrote:
> Mark Hansen schrieb:
>> On 10/20/09 21:50, Ant wrote:
>>> I noticed a design flaw? If the e-mail uses the same titles, it seems to
>>> organize into that same thread even though they are not the same, just
>>> the same titles.
>>
>> E-mail doesn't hav
Mark Hansen schrieb:
> On 10/20/09 21:50, Ant wrote:
>> I noticed a design flaw? If the e-mail uses the same titles, it seems to
>> organize into that same thread even though they are not the same, just
>> the same titles.
>
> E-mail doesn't have the References header, so I'm pretty sure it mu
On 10/20/09 21:50, Ant wrote:
> On 10/19/2009 7:58 AM PT, Ant typed:
>
>>> When you look at your View menu in Mail & Newsgroups, do you have both
>>> Sort By and Threads sub-menus?
>>>
>>> Here is what I use:
>>>
>>> View -> Sort By -> Order Received
>>> View -> Sort By -> Ascending (or De
On 10/19/2009 7:58 AM PT, Ant typed:
When you look at your View menu in Mail & Newsgroups, do you have both
Sort By and Threads sub-menus?
Here is what I use:
View -> Sort By -> Order Received
View -> Sort By -> Ascending (or Descending, if you prefer)
View -> Sort By -> Threaded
Bill Davidsen schrieb:
>
> It would be nice in threaded mode to have a choice of sort by first post
> date and sort by most recent post date, but it's one of those features
> you only really miss a few times a year.
>
> What I would like is an explicit 'sort by date received' rather than
> date i
Ant wrote:
On 10/19/2009 12:39 AM PT, Martin Freitag typed:
I didn't even know SeaMonkey v1.1.18's e-mails could be sorted by
threads. I always had it sorted by dates.
I was wondering if there was a way to short threads by
newest/updated dates. I replied to an old e-mail thread and it was
not
Ant wrote:
I didn't even know SeaMonkey v1.1.18's e-mails could be sorted by
threads. I always had it sorted by dates.
I was wondering if there was a way to short threads by newest/updated
dates. I replied to an old e-mail thread and it was not at the top
(sorted by newest to oldest).
If un
On 10/19/2009 7:17 AM PT, Mark Hansen typed:
When I click on Date column's header, then I lose the threading format. :(
Phil,
When you look at your View menu in Mail & Newsgroups, do you have both
Sort By and Threads sub-menus?
Here is what I use:
View -> Sort By -> Order Received
V
On 10/19/09 06:43, Ant wrote:
> On 10/19/2009 12:39 AM PT, Martin Freitag typed:
>
> I didn't even know SeaMonkey v1.1.18's e-mails could be sorted by
> threads. I always had it sorted by dates.
>
> I was wondering if there was a way to short threads by newest/updated
> dates.
On 10/19/2009 12:39 AM PT, Martin Freitag typed:
I didn't even know SeaMonkey v1.1.18's e-mails could be sorted by
threads. I always had it sorted by dates.
I was wondering if there was a way to short threads by newest/updated
dates. I replied to an old e-mail thread and it was not at the top
(
Ant schrieb:
> On 10/18/2009 4:15 PM PT, Martin Freitag typed:
>
>>> I didn't even know SeaMonkey v1.1.18's e-mails could be sorted by
>>> threads. I always had it sorted by dates.
>>>
>>> I was wondering if there was a way to short threads by newest/updated
>>> dates. I replied to an old e-mail t
On 10/18/2009 4:15 PM PT, Martin Freitag typed:
I didn't even know SeaMonkey v1.1.18's e-mails could be sorted by
threads. I always had it sorted by dates.
I was wondering if there was a way to short threads by newest/updated
dates. I replied to an old e-mail thread and it was not at the top
(s
Ant schrieb:
> I didn't even know SeaMonkey v1.1.18's e-mails could be sorted by
> threads. I always had it sorted by dates.
>
> I was wondering if there was a way to short threads by newest/updated
> dates. I replied to an old e-mail thread and it was not at the top
> (sorted by newest to oldest)
I didn't even know SeaMonkey v1.1.18's e-mails could be sorted by
threads. I always had it sorted by dates.
I was wondering if there was a way to short threads by newest/updated
dates. I replied to an old e-mail thread and it was not at the top
(sorted by newest to oldest).
If unavailale in
20 matches
Mail list logo
