Subject: Reverse?

From: Adam J Weitzman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 15:35:54 -0400 (EDT)

My site has been using 3.07 for a while, and when 3.90 comes out I'm
considering upgrading us to it. But I logged into another one of my
accounts recently, where they installed 3.85, and something is troubling me.

Imagine my surprise when my messages were in my box in the opposite order
in which I am used to them. I thought, well, no problem, this must be a
settable attribute, right? But there didn't seem to be any way of editing
my .pinerc to automatically put the messages in what I consider to be
their normal order. Sure, I can resort it every time, but that seems
silly. 

It seems perverse to me that anyone would want their messages in this
order. If you're trying to follow a discussion, you get all the aftermath
before you ever figure out what's going on in the first place. (This is
the same problem I have with the "old-style-reply" being what I consider
to be normal, where you have the quoted text first and the response
afterwards. It's difficult to read the messages from the Pine team on this
list because they all start with your answer to the question, and then I
have to page down to figure out what the question was, then go back up to
understand the answer in context. But at least I can set this attribute on
my own mail. Who decided this was desirable, and why, just as a history
question?) It seems obscene that I would be forced to read my messages
this way without it being a settable parameter. 

Am I missing something obvious? I'd hate to be stuck on 3.07 just because
of this one tiny missing requirement.

                                        - Adam J Weitzman
                                          INDIVIDUAL, Inc.
                                          [email-masked]

---

From: Terry Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 14:05:44 -0700 (PDT)

> accounts recently, where they installed 3.85, and something is troubling me.

Adam,
Take a deep breath... it'll be OK :)
 
> their normal order. Sure, I can resort it every time, but that seems

The default sort order for the Index has not changed; it continues to be
Arrival order, i.e. the order that messages were appened to the folder. 

In recent versions you can select a default sort order for the Index view 
of the folder:

# sort-key= order in which messages will be presented...
sort-key=

There are several choices, including "reverse" which I'd guess is the one 
you encountered and didn't like.

As to there being only one obvious/true/correct way of sorting the Index,
Trust us, there are plenty of folks who would be very disappointed if
this option went away.  
 
> this way without it being a settable parameter. 

Well, we're all glad that it's a settable parameter, then, right?

As with Index sorting, the question of what style of Reply is "correct" is
*highly* subjective, with proponents for more variations than you can
imagine.  My own view is that whether the response should be above or
below the original text depends on two things: the length of the original
text, and the expected time interval between sending and receiving.  If
the original text is short, I prefer the response below; otherwise above
--especially if the time constant is short.  I surely do *not* want to
scroll through a long history of a dialogue to get to the bottom line
answer... that would annoy me at least as much as the opposite case annoys
you! 

Anyway, different strokes for different folks...
 
> of this one tiny missing requirement.

Breathe easy...

-teg

---

From: Adam J Weitzman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 17:36:16 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 11 May 1994, Terry Gray wrote:

> > in which I am used to them.
> 

OK. Let me explain my confusion then, as I think I may have asked the
wrong question.

I sent three messages to myself at this other site. I looked in the mail
spool where my incoming messages are, and there they are in the order I
sent them in, 1, 2, and 3. When I call Pine to open up my inbox, It
displays them 3, 2, and 1. 

> In recent versions you can select a default sort order for the Index view 

Right now, the "sort-key" entry in my .pinerc is blank, which means it
defaults to "arrival" as you said, although it doesn't appear to be that
way in practice. (I tried putting "reverse" in there, even though it's not
listed as one of the options, and got the same behavior.)

> As to there being only one obvious/true/correct way of sorting the Index,

I never suggested this. I only said that, to me, it was weird, and to not
be able to set it was extremely frustrating. 

> Well, we're all glad that it's a settable parameter, then, right?

Well, I am, if you can tell me how to set it. What am I doing wrong?

> *highly* subjective,

Of course. But I would like a history lesson anyways, as up until I was
introduced to the Pine world, all of my communications (both from me and
to me) read the "old-style" way. The name implies that *it* was the
default once, and since then it has been changed to what it is now. I'm
just curious.

                                        - Adam J Weitzman
                                          INDIVIDUAL, Inc.
                                          [email-masked]

---

From: Terry Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 15:46:42 -0700 (PDT)

> displays them 3, 2, and 1. 

Adam, 
One possible explanation is that the system manager for that site may have
made sort-key=reverse the default for the site (by putting it in the
global pine.conf file.)

I'm not entirely sure how to over-ride this particular variable in your 
personal .pinerc...  You might try: sort-key=""  or maybe sort-key=arrival
 
> default once, and since then it has been changed to what it is now. I'm

I don't think Pine invented the "above" style, but it is certainly the
less common default.  The Pine-specific history is not mysterious:  the
original group involved in defining requirements for Pine (including some
users) felt that the "above" style was preferable.  As I indicated before,
when you are part of a back-and-forth dialogue from the beginning, the
last thing in the world you want to do is scroll thru all of the history
of the conversation to find the latest addition at the bottom... but if
you are CC'd at the end of the discussion, I agree that chrono order is
more convenient --until the next reply forces you to scroll thru the stuff
you've already seen to get to the newest addition. 

But again, "standards vary"... which is why it's been an option since the 
earliest versions.

-teg

---

From: Adam J Weitzman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 18:53:54 -0400 (EDT)

> personal .pinerc...  You might try: sort-key=""  or maybe sort-key=arrival

sort-key=arrival did the trick! Thanks! Your help is very much appreciated.

> [history lesson deleted]

Thanks for this. The overall point of this, I think, is that most people
can't be bothered to edit the quoted text to leave just enough for
context, and then reply. As someone to whom this is second nature, I think
having entire conversations included in an email is undesirable no matter
what direction it's going in. *shrug*

                                        - Adam J Weitzman
                                          INDIVIDUAL, Inc.
                                          [email-masked]

---

From: "Brian P. Hampson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 16:20:52 -0700 (PDT)

> sent them in, 1, 2, and 3. When I call Pine to open up my inbox, It

For some stupid reason, mail sends the LAST message first...I've 
encountered it before.

> listed as one of the options, and got the same behavior.)

By the sounds of it you GOT arrival <g>

> Well, I am, if you can tell me how to set it. What am I doing wrong?

sort=date

B.

   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   |Brian P. Hampson                  Internet: [email-masked] |
   |System Administration,                      [email-masked]        |
   |Analytical Service Labs           Fidonet : Brian Hampson 1:153/733   |
   |Vancouver, BC                                                         |
   |                                                                      |
   |               Specialists in Environmental Chemistry                 | 
   |                                                                      |
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------