GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 412845
Threads with new messages are hard to find
Last modified: 2007-08-23 17:15:55 UTC
Please describe the problem: A common feature of mailers is for them to use the date of the newest message in a thread when sorting. This causes threads with new messages to rise to the top of the message display when sorted by received date (desc). If you receive many e-mails and have some long-running threads, you may have to scroll through hundreds of messages to find new mail. Also, you can experience this if you submit a bug and a month later someone replies to it. This is frustrating and causes a lot of wasted time. Steps to reproduce: 1. Enable threaded display (Ctrl +T I think) 2. Sort your mailbox by "Received" Desc 3. Reply to an older message in your inbox and have the recipient reply back 4. The incoming message will be threaded under the original message, which will still appear far down in your inbox Actual results: This basically renders message threading unusable, or barely usable. I have, for example, over 1700 messages in my "bugs" folder. When someone sends me a new message, scrolling through the list to find it is very time consuming. Expected results: Gmail, outlook, thunderbird and others will sort the threads not by the parent message's received date, but by the received date of the newest message in the thread. Does this happen every time? Yes Other information:
> If you receive many e-mails and have some long-running threads, you > may have to scroll through hundreds of messages to find new mail. hmm, you can jump to the next unread message in that folder. sounds a bit like bug 328308 to me.
This is not a duplicate of bug #328308, but it is a duplicate of bug #203206 (which bug #328308 was once erroneously marked a duplicate of). Bug #203206 seems to have quite a lot of duplicates already. Looks like a popular request.
As the previous poster suggests, this bug is definitely a duplicate of bug #203206 (which is fixed!). It should be marked as such and closed.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 203206 ***