> From: Allen Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 10:20:05 -0700 > Subject: Re: Would this be possible in a Applescript > > On or near 5/29/04 2:10 AM, Rob Buckley at [EMAIL PROTECTED] observed: > >> You could try Friendlier Claris It!. It doesn't do exactly this, but might >> be close enough to what you want. >> >> http://homepage.mac.com/robbuckley > > I was going to suggest this script. Rob's script automatically creates a > folder for _every_ correspondant, and the script also (quite efficiently) > files incoming messages into the folders thus created. No need for separate > rules for each folder! That's quite nice. The script is set to run, > basically, after any other rules that operate on specific message groups; it > catches only the mail that has not previously been filed. > > I discontinued its use because I didn't want a new folder created the first > time I received a message from someone (if I recall, the "someone" has to be > in my Entourage Address Book; it does not create new folders for unsolicited > mail from strangers). Your suggestion to do so after receiving a certain > number of messages from an individual sounds like a good workaround. The > script could keep track of message counts for new correspondants in > properties, and once the trigger-point is reached (ten messages or > whatever), create the folder and delete the count for that contact since it > will no longer be needed. It would be non-trivial coding to enhance > Friendlier Claris It! in this way, but it could be done and should work > fairly smoothly.
I obviously need to work on my documentation! While it's true that if you set up an incoming mail rule to run the script on every message and you use the script with its default setting, that's the behaviour you can expect to see, there is a handy little configuration utility that comes with it that you can use to change the defaults. You can, for instance, set it to file any message, irrespective of whether the sender is in the addressbook, and it'll create folders using the display name or email address of the sender (eg If you don't have me in your address book and you were to run the script on a message from me, it would create a folder called 'Rob Buckley' and file the email in it [or in a subfolder, depending on your preferences. You can also specify prefices for folders so you could call the folder 'Mail from Rob Buckley']. If I had been negligent enough not to specify my name on the email, the folder would be called '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. If I were in your address book, then there would be a lot more options for you, since you can attach categories, nicknames, company, department and other criteria to a contact as well as just a name.) I, personally, don't run Friendlier Claris It! from a rule on incoming messages (although I do on outgoing messages). All my incoming emails end up in my Inbox as expected (subject to Mailing List rules, SpamSieve rules, etc). I can then read them, delete them or whatever, and only once I've decided whether they're worthy of filing do I run the script using a keyboard shortcut (by default Control-F): I think that's easier than having them automatically filed first, having to find them wherever they've been sent, then doing the necessary (and potentially having to delete the message anyway). While I can understand the natural tendency to want the labour taken out of email filing (since, obviously, I wrote a stonking great big script to do just that), I can't help feeling that setting up, essentially, a great big record of every email sender/recipient you've ever dealt with in order to let a computer decide for you that you're friendly enough with that person for filing their mail to be warranted is a little bit of overkill. I think the manual application of Friendlier Claris It! gives you more flexibility (what if you decide you really like someone and want to file their emails after only five exchanges? Or perhaps you're still undecided and want to leave it 'til 12 messages?) and probably saves you more time from not having to overrule the computer's decisions. But each to their own: if someone wants me to fiddle with the script to produce a behaviour not readily obtainable using cunning combinations of rules, changes to the script's preferences or even clever trickery involving multiple copies of the script, then I'll certainly have a look at it. Let me know! -- Rob Buckley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) All these editor blokes, I understand, look pretty careworn after they've been at the job for awhile... Today he looked more editorial than ever. The Inferiority Complex of Old Sippy, PG Wodehouse -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
