from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E3CC44155
	for <jm@localhost>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:08:07 -0400 (EDT)
from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:08:07 +0100 (IST)
from listman.example.com (listman.example.com [66.187.233.211]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SEA6Z27663 for
    <jm-exmh@jmason.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:10:07 +0100
from listman.example.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by
    listman.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E3F40A57; Wed, 28 Aug 2002
    10:10:14 -0400 (EDT)
from int-mx1.corp.example.com (int-mx1.corp.example.com
    [172.16.52.254]) by listman.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD1B40A05
    for <exmh-workers@listman.redhat.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:09:21 -0400
    (EDT)
(from mail@localhost) by int-mx1.corp.example.com (8.11.6/8.11.6)
    id g7SE9Iq22132 for exmh-workers@listman.redhat.com; Wed, 28 Aug 2002
    10:09:18 -0400
from mx1.example.com (mx1.example.com [172.16.48.31]) by
    int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g7SE9IY22128 for
    <exmh-workers@redhat.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:09:18 -0400
from ratree.psu.ac.th ([202.28.97.6]) by mx1.example.com
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g7SDs9l32404 for <exmh-workers@redhat.com>;
    Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:54:11 -0400
from munnari.OZ.AU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SE6UW21101; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:06:30
    +0700 (ICT)
From exmh-workers-admin@redhat.com  Wed Aug 28 15:08:10 2002

It turns out, when I did some investigation, that my memory of how MH
worked here was wrong (that's not unusual) - the -seq switch seems to
have always done -nolist (requiring a subsequent -list to turn it on
Given that, I have no idea how the pick code as it was ever worked.  In
fact, it quite possibly never did the way it was intended to (I have just
been browsing the 2.5 sources, and that seems to be attempting to do things
It may be that your new sequence method just exposed the bug that had been
Given this, I won't be sending any bug reports to the nmh people.  If nmh
ever seems to be showing any signs further progress, and if I remember this
then, I might send them a change request.   The code to make the change is