Are you proposing that those be two different sort fields - essentially DATE and MSN (in IMAP-speak)?

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:50:30 -0300, Martin Marques wrote:

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:07:00 -0600, Eric Stadtherr  wrote:
> 
> 
> 	I am partially responsible for the sorting "fixes" of late, so
> I'd like to take part in the resolution of this one. Rev288
> contains a fix I made to the code that manages the results of the
> server-side sorting Although the fix is working, it seems that it
> negatively impacted the behavior in the absence of "SORT" capability
> on the IMAP server.
> 
> 	I believe the behavior before my fix was to simply display the
> messages in IMAP Message Sequence Number order (basically the order
> the messages arrived in the folder). I think I can come up with an
> easy patch to restore this behavior when "SORT" capability is absent.
> How does that sound? 

For me date order and arravial order are two different ways of sorting messages.

--
---------------------------------------------------------
Lic. Martín Marqués         |   SELECT 'mmarques' || 
Centro de Telemática        |       '@' || 'unl.edu.ar';
Universidad Nacional        |   DBA, Programador, 
    del Litoral             |   Administrador
---------------------------------------------------------