Thanks for the followup, guys! James, I implemented what you talked about from Issue 601. I think that will definitely help!
Janos, we can do multiple searches if MailPiler can't handle a complex search like we were attempting. (I don't know if other archivers can do it, either, so don't think I'm slamming MailPiler!) We were able to find the data we needed; it just seemed more difficult than it should have been. RE: eml file names... That is a good point. If you try to save multiple emails from Outlook, for example, it prompts saying that it already has a file saved with that name (after the first). So, even Microsoft doesn't automatically handle it. Would it be possible to export the emails by subject, appending a number based of sent time (1,2,3, etc., oldest being 1, incrementing the number with newer emails)? RE: Time & Date search... Is this something that can't be done? Or would this better be served as a feature request on BitBucket? -- Regards, Stephen R. Risinger . Systems Administrator . srisin...@meintl.com Meetings & Events International | www.meintl.com -----Original Message----- From: Janos SUTO [mailto:s...@acts.hu] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 2:28 PM Hello Stephen, well, check the maillog if the parsed query looks OK. Anyway it might be easier to do two search queries: from: ema...@domain.com OR ema...@domain.com OR ema...@domain.com, date1: 2015-09-18 then another: to: ema...@domain.com OR ema...@domain.com OR ema...@domain.com, date1: 2015-09-18 If you insist on running a single query, then start with the date: date1: 2015-09-18, (from: ema...@domain.com OR ema...@domain.com OR ema...@domain.com) OR (to: ema...@domain.com OR ema...@domain.com OR ema...@domain.com) Also check the maillog if the sphinx query is built properly. > change the *.eml filename to better reflect the email, perhaps using > the subject, for example? might be possible, however how to deal with a message thread having 5 messages with the same subject, eg. Re: what was this? > I also can't figure out how to search for times. Adding time to a date > (YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss) changes the search to incorrect results or gives > no results whatsoever. What gives? (aka, I feel like I'm doing this > wrong. Am I, or is this a bug in the search?) well, the date parser handles year, month and day only. Don't specify anything else. Btw. James is right with the highlighting, it was fixed recently in the master branch. Janos
