Comment 8 for bug 115153

Excellent to see some commentary on this. I've just returned from vacation, and will try to respond:
From Comment #4:
1) Apple's Mail does this, but I don't think I care much what's displayed when the thread is closed. But,
if the sort is affected by the last "order received" (not really date, in this case), then it makes sense to
display the date of the last message in the thread (by order-received sorting).
2) -Umm- this is confusing. It confuses the original RFE. Please ignore it.

And it goes on to talk about the "received date (ala. SPAM) and sent date". This is confusing, as well.
The "sent date" is the date it was sent, from the mail Date: header. That's what spam mucks with. The
received date is the envelope time-stamp, and is different. I have no desire for a "received date" sort,
as "order received" does this fine for me, as indicated in a later comment.

w.r.t. Comment #5:

I think I understand all of this and agree. I definately want the headers to resort when new mail comes
in. Doesn't this already happen? If it does normally, and the fig for bug 20385 doesn't cause that to
happen when doing a threaded presentation of mail sorted by Date; then I'd argue that as a bug. [This
is later noted to be bug #262319]

Mike (comment #6):

  I am also hoping it would be easy to add this functionality to "Order Received" sorting, much as bug
20385 implemented it for Date sorting. And, while your point about finding things using "threads with
unread" does solve that problem, it's not what I want to do typically. I'd just like "active" threads to be
moved to the bottom of the sort. Thus the RFE.

Thanks. I would be happy to see the default sort for things to have it done this way. I'm not sure
there's much advantage to the current system. But, in case other people liked the current system, I
suggested it be an option. Vote me accepting of having it be the "new" behaviour with no way to switch
it back. :-)