Webmail displaying wrong message

[#1]

I have found the "wrong ordering" of emails appears to be endemic. Here's the analysis of my inbox as it is at present - having been emptied by a pop download 2 hours ago. It's ordered in "newest first" order in the listing.
This time I've recorded the "uid" number too - listing has the first number being the number showing as "Message X of 11" when reading the email, the second number being the position on the date-ordered listing counting down from the top, and the third the uid number:
1 - 1 - 447
2 - 6 - 440
3 - 9 - 443
4 - 3 - 439
5 - 7 - 436
6 - 10 - 445
7 - 2 - 442
8 - 4 - 438
9 - 8 - 444
10 - 5 - 441
11 - 11 - 435
Surely the listing when you're going through the individual emails should be ordered so as to be the same as on the index screen. It's clearly not, but I also can't determine what order it IS in.

[#2]

Yes, the sort order seems peculiar. As though sorting and display are using lists at two different standards. The cause of this is sometimes a mix of arrival/modification/creation times. I wonder ...

[#3]

Last example then I'll stop - it would have been useful if PlusNet staff had atetempted to explain what's going on here:
Listing has the first number being the number showing as "Message X of 11" when reading the email, the second number being the position on the date-ordered listing counting down from the top, and the third the uid number:
7 - 8 - 572
8 - 16 - 571
9 - 15 - 570
10 - 14 - 569
11 - 7 - 568
12 - 10 - 567
13 - 11 - 566
14 - 9 - 565
15 - 13 - 564
16 - 12 - 563
This does seem to suggest that the ordering of messages when reading messages is "date/time received" whereas the ordering of messages on the listing screen is "date/time sent" - why can't the two be the same?

[#4]

Which date/time would you prefer, just out of interest.

[#5]

There are arguments either way. I'd prefer sent time since that's more logical but if an email is seriously delayed it would then appear down the listing and might get missed, as some can in any case if wrongly tagged as Spam and then restored to the inbox.
But I'd certainly expect reading through emails individually to go in the same order as however the index screen is ordered. I haven't, for example, tried ordering by subject and then seeing what happens

[#6]

It's got nothing to do with the date/time either sent or received, so I expect when you order in subject or From, there will be no difference.
I totally agree with you, they should go through the order in which you have them listed.
Anything that is moved into the Inbox goes to the top of the list - whether that be undelete, moved from Junk, or new mail and seems to be related to when it went into the Inbox (ie UID not time) but I haven't checked that yet.

[#7]

One can change the listing order by clicking the 'list options' selector at the left edge of the heading strip (to left of 'Subject'). Either 'Arrival date' or 'Sent date' is an option. I have 'List/Sent date/descending' selected.
The setting changes when a 'heading' is clicked to change the order. However if this is done when 'Arrival date' was previously selected, clicking the 'Date' column selects 'Sent date', ie doesn't return to 'Arrival date'.
Despite all this rows in the list aught to correspond with the message that gets displayed.

[#8]

Oh! I've not seen that control before!
I also have 'List/Sent date/descending' selected. However if I select sorting by 'Arrival date' it changes them around but still seems to be showing 'Sent date' in the listing since the order then goes non-chronological - check out the attached.
Setting it thus also sorts out the wrong ordering previously seen. Now the listing in the index agrees with the message number as I'd previously surmised.
Perhaps there's a global setting somewhere which would alter the listing to show the arrival date instead of sent date?

[#9]

There were bug reports in 2010 about sorting on dates mixing sent date and received date. Trying to access, for example, http://trac.roundcube.net/ticket/1485144 just times out for me so I can't check the ticket. I'd assumed those issues were sorted long ago, but perhaps not completely.
edit: ... and downforeveryone says it's not just down for me.