> This from the originator of the question, Andrew Kaplan (see > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg04526.html): > > "Didn't you have a script that would delete all mail for a particular > sender." > > Note the last two words: "particular sender", not recipient. Hence, my > script addresses his question and works just fine in this scenario.
Then reply to that persons message, not Keith Woodworth's or mine, both of which show a script that does more. The cleanq that Keith noted is one of two things, a custom one, or the one by Mark Davis and Craig Sanders. Without knowing what his script does, there is no way I can say whether he was stating it did the same thing as the man postsuper example or not. But the fact remains that the man postsuper example is a very versatile one, and does more than what was requested. This more expands the topic being presented. When you say, "Here is an even simpler one:" in reply to a message, you imply that is a simpler way to do what THAT message is talking about. Not a simper way to get the same goal that the original poster was getting at. If you had said, "Here is an even simpler one for cleaning based off of the sender:" then you would have been reiterating the original point, rather than continuing on the changed thread. That is why I say your script, as posted, is flawed. I will admit not flawed in execution as a script, but flawed in how it was introduced into the discussion. The thread shifted, and you shifted back without any notification you had done so. It does not matter at this point because now everyone on the list knows the strengths and weaknesses of both scripts, and this discussion has pretty much dissolved to flaming. --Eric
