Re: Inbox 'dangers'

2007-03-06 Thread Thomas Fernandez
Hello Paul, On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:14:19 +1000 GMT (06/03/2007, 11:14 +0700 GMT), Paul Berger wrote: ASK But wouldn't that also move messages that are BCC'ed to you to trash? PB Thank you for querying this, as it could have been a problem. PB Have just tested it, and it seems to allow my BCC'ed

Re[2]: Inbox 'dangers'

2007-03-06 Thread Paul Berger
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tuesday, March 6, 2007, 9:59:39 PM, you wrote: TF Hello Paul, TF On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:14:19 +1000 GMT (06/03/2007, 11:14 +0700 GMT), TF Paul Berger wrote: ASK But wouldn't that also move messages that are BCC'ed to you to trash? PB Thank you for querying this, as it

Re[2]: Inbox 'dangers'

2007-03-05 Thread Paul Berger
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tuesday, March 6, 2007, 4:38:26 AM, you wrote: ASK Hello Paul Berger everyone else, ASK on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 06:04 you (Paul Berger) wrote: One other filter that helps to keep out spam: Recipient does not match your own email addressor any additional

Inbox 'dangers'

2007-03-04 Thread Jack S. LaRosa
Hello one and all, Quite some time ago I read a post suggesting it was somehow unsafe to keep received posts in the 'inbox'. Because of that post I created a 'faux inbox' and a filter to redirect all incoming posts to that 'faux inbox'. It has worked well all this time but I can no longer

Re[2]: Inbox 'dangers'

2007-03-04 Thread Paul Berger
Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED], Monday, March 5, 2007, 7:59:24 AM, you wrote: ASK Hello Jack S. LaRosa everyone else, ASK on Sunday, March 4, 2007 at 22:47 you (Jack S. LaRosa) wrote: I find it 'inelegant' to have this faux inbox as it's yet another folder displayed in the account tree. ASK Oh,