Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Alexander all fellow TBUDL members, Wednesday, December 01, 1999 and before, Alexander wrote: ... AVK In TB this part cannot be implemented, therefore one would need AVK to implement this part as "Read" type filters. But then I would AVK *have* to open *each* of the delivery confirmations to get them AVK filtered where I want them to go to, which isn't the thing I AVK would like to do... The reason being, that TB implements no folder level read mail filters. Once again, our reactions are similar. Doing that would be excessively burdensome and time consuming, inefficient and impractical. AVK That's it. AVK In many cases, it's quite enough to *look* at the delivery conf AVK in the folder listing to say, where it came from and what does AVK this all mean. Particularly if it came in on a list. AVK Yes, but then all the delivery confirmations can be separated AVK from the "valuable" traffic. I usually filter on "daemon" and "mail AVK delivery" strings in the sender... That does the trick. And could be done in TB. AVK Following this idea, in Pegasus I have set up a filter that AVK *automatically* marks all the delivery-type messages with pale AVK gray colour in the Inbox, so that I could just skip these AVK messages... TB's filtering won't allow me this, too. Color coding is an excellent marker once learned. (I used color years ago for coding vowel sounds when teaching English to Spanish speaking children, and it's much better than the letters themselves in English in that sense, and aren't that hard to memorize). I would think that Pegasus is *the* email client with which TB must compete (not an easy task, given Pegasus' price), AVK :-))) What does :-))) represent? since the Pegasus user base is probably the group most like TB's own. AVK Wrong here. Pegasus is much a Netware-oriented package, offering AVK *real lot* of extra functionality under Netware. Then, it has AVK excellent network support (can be installed on the server side, AVK users logging in from the client machines, and this type of AVK functionality is refined all the time). All this results in the AVK situation when Pegasus is used on *large* LANs AVK (AFAIK, on Pegasus mailing list we have 30+ postmasters of 1500+ AVK user LANs), whilst TB with its current functionality is mainly a AVK single- user or family application (remember the addressbooks AVK wisible for ALL the users:-)) And you work primarily in an institutional setting, whereas although my work involves dealing with institutions, but I do so from a private (although incorporated) base. This means Pegasus is more appropriate to your setting for a number of reasons. AVK From what I heard I assume that RIT labs are mainly aimed at AVK competing with Eudora (and here luck can and must be on TB's AVK side:-)) given the Eudora's quality...) But Eudora has an establish user base and deep pockets behind it. In my case, Pegasus has performed erratically on my system AVK Just curious, how? By crashing. Eudora also. Netscape and TB don't. have poor customer service), but TB needs some polishing, to go along w some very solid basic and advanced functions. AVK That's my point, too. And maybe some rethinking and redesigning, particularly where filtering is concerned. I was discussing last night the absence of *any* way to flag messages in TB AVK Well, in Pegasus one's got "quick folders" feature:-) That is, a AVK single key-combo moves the current message to a pre-defined AVK (by the user) folder. Up to 9 quick folders supported. Very good feature. AVK snipped the rest, since we're apparently thinking similarly... Thank you for the detailed explanation. While I can see and appreciate your point, I feel committed to TB and enjoy using it in many ways that Pegasus never achieved for me. (In fact, Pegasus has never run problem free for me). TB is excellent for composition it and it's also very stable. AVK Actually, TB currently: AVK 1. Doesn't support the features I use every now and then (for AVK example, advanced MIME functionality like attaching *multiple* AVK messages to a message, I have attached multiple files to a single message using TB w/o problems. AVK creating/reading MIME digests, etc.); That will be supported in the v. 2. AVK 2. Has nontheless numerous bugs in its very basic functionality. AVK That's IMHO, of course:-) I would hate to have to give up TB's bilingual spell checker and a lot of the formatting support works well for me. But I *am* going to have to put some time into devising a filtering system that I can control in an orderly way using TB as is. There are things that it lacks that have been mentioned previously, and at least some of these issues are being addressed in the v. 2. Best regards, Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Ali all fellow TBUDL members, Wednesday, December 01, 1999, 12:53:11 AM, Ali wrote in response to my saying: Since my past email client had an accounts column, it was easy for me to keep house manually, depending on source, content, importance, follow up required etc. and the decision I'd make at the moment. In TB I *can't* do that, without destroying my parked flags (that's what they are to me, and all they are to me). AM TB! keeps all accounts completely independent of each other. I AM personally prefer this but that's just my humble opinion. :) If an account column was available in the "setup columns" menu, TB users would have a choice of using one structure and / or the other. AM If the accounts are kept separate from each other then there's no AM need for an accounts column. :) Agreed, in general terms. But there *could* be occasion in which one would want to mix messages from different accounts (on a single theme, for instance) in the same folder. Thinking about it, if the folder column could programmed to show only the receiving account as the final destination) and the message itself never left there, but was instead dynamically linked to whatever visual structure the user chose to give it, it seems to me at the moment that this might be an ideal solution. (However, the idea hadn't *occurred* until this moment). In other words, all messages would reside in the inbox of the receiving account, or even in a single message depository. The rest of it would b accomplished with short cuts, aside from what was deleted from trash itself or wiped. This arrangement would make it very easy to find anything, if there was any doubt as to it's location. Any comments? How difficult would this be to implement on non-windows systems (such as Linux)? AM Outlook is more along what you seem to be suggesting where mail AM from all accounts is kept in one area, the argument being, why AM separate the mail when all accounts belong to the user. In this case, the assumption is that the user wants to see all incoming mail on arrival, without jumping around between folders then filter or move them from there. However, this arrangement in no way precludes the user from filtering given messages to a given folder on arrival. My previous email client was Calypso, which I liked using until it crashed for good and found out that mcsdallas, the distributor - which is either *only* a distributor or (unlike TB), has *very* poor contact with it's development staff and *no* functioning user group I could find - is made up of let's say less than helpful individuals (an understatement), which is nuf said for Calypso, for now. I *have* used both Outlook Express and Outlook 98 a little, but like most MS products, incorrectly anticipates what it thinks the user wants and tries to impose that on the user, while successfully impeding the user from achieving what *he or she* wants to do. (nuf said for Outlook MS also, except that ms, or rather mswin95, is part of the problem that arose w/ Calypso and never-the-less-must still be dealt with for now - until changing os's - unlike Calypso which can't do many of the things TB does so well anyway). Incidentally, as for changing OS's, the only thing holding me back is developer support for the applications I use and the time required for doing what we're doing here - assimilated and familiarizing myself with the paradigm and design of TB, as well as looking ahead to where "we" want to go, consensually. Once again, you appear to be ignoring read reply message filters, AM ... since they don't seem to be an immediate issue just yet. :) I discovered that, further on in your post. ... AM Yes, I am eagerly awaiting help file documentation on 'regular AM expressions' use in TB!. So far, all my knowledge is being attained AM through other apps that use Regexps. Have you had any results? AM I have used regular expressions a couple times but can't find use for AM it in my own message filtering. Steve Lamb mentioned that regular AM expressions could make me not have to create all the rules that I use, AM but I don't think so, since for each folder that I create to which AM messages are filtered, I need to create at least one rule with at AM least one string defined. Regular expressions may help if a rule has AM many strings defined and one could possibly create a regular AM expression that covers all the strings, thus preventing my having to AM enter all the strings separately. I *do* have a couple folders with AM many alternate strings entered, but the headers vary so much in unique AM content, that using a regular expression to accurately cover strings AM that will correspond to all and only those messages that I wish to AM filter is nigh unto impossible. Understood. Looks like there's no immediate need there on my part either, but *would* like to know more, once more info is available. Using alt + f + f gives you a choice of any or all or the 4 sets available - in,
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Paula all fellow TBUDL members, Wednesday, December 01, 1999, 4:11:20 AM, Paula wrote: PF Despite Douglas' problems with Calypso, it has a lovely filtering PF system. All of what you mentioned is accomplished in a simpler and more PF elegant manner... Just a short clarification: The problem w/ Calypso's crashing can no doubt be resolved. And I liked the product, not the service. The real problem is with mcsdallas and their whole way of thinking, their general attitude. I doubt that they themselves developed the product and anyone buying it is basically on his own. Best regards, Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] PF On Wednesday, December 01, 1999, Ali Martin wrote: I don't see the advantage either. I think the present implementation is an attempt to make things clearer but they have, to me, done the opposite. :( The filter manager should, IMHO, be just like the address book in design. ... PF Despite Douglas' problems with Calypso, it has a lovely filtering PF system. All of what you mentioned is accomplished in a simpler and more PF elegant manner. A single filter, for example, can be set to apply to PF both incoming and outgoing messages. Filters can run automatically, of PF course, but can also be picked off a quickly accessible list to run at PF any time and much more - very nice implementation. TB started with PF an awkward construct and now they are probably stuck with for the sake PF of backward compatibility, unfortunately, but they certainly can PF improve, and I'm sure they will. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Ali, Thanks! I'll try that! One question - just for my own sanity - what exactly are "Kludges"? It sounds like something a plumber might have to deal with ;-) Thanks, Jason Jason Ellis wrote: I too am having problems getting my filters in TB to work properly. I've managed to get most things filtering OK, but, amazingly, the one thing I haven't been able to get to filter at all is this mailing list! And yes, when I received the signup e-mail it gave instructions for setting up a filter for this list, but when I followed those instructions, it didn't work. The filter is there, but it's not filtering the messages. Can anyone offer some guidance? This works for me, without fail, since my subscription. :) I place the TBUDL and TBBeta filters at the top of my list of filters. I created an incoming mail filter. Sited the destination folder (In my case it's Inbox/tbudl). The filter string used is '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Location : Kludges Rule : Active. And that's it! Jason Ellis, CEO Hosting Solutions, Inc. www.windowswebhost.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
JE One question - just for my own sanity - what exactly are "Kludges"? It JE sounds like something a plumber might have to deal with ;-) ROTFL!!! That's a good one. Thanks. OK, so I tried the filtering suggestion to get this list filtered and, as with the other filtering attempts for this mailing list, it didn't work - still won't filter. Anyone else have any suggestions? I've been able to filter everything else except this one mailing list. Thanks, Jason It's a FIDO slang for message headers. The terminology ought to be consistent but 'RFC Headers' and 'Kludges' are used interchangeably in the interface creating some amount of unnecessary confusion. Jason Ellis, CEO Hosting Solutions, Inc. www.windowswebhost.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Ali, What happens to the TBUDL mail then? Do they all remain in the Inbox? It all remains in the inbox, yes. Where in the list of filters have you placed the rule for filtering TBUDL mail? I placed it first, as you suggested. Do you use more than one e-mail accounts? Yes - I have 9 e-mail accounts right now. IOW, we need more info. :) OK. As far as I can tell, this is the only list I'm trying to filter that doesn't have an "easy" filter criteria (all the others I can filter based on either the from, to, or something standardized in the subject line.) This one doesn't seem to have any of that - as you pointed out, the only way apparently to filter this is based on what's in the headers, because the to is just to me, the from is from whoever sent it (which is different than all of my other lists I am filtering in that on those the from is the list address), and there's no standardized subject line. Jason Ellis, CEO Hosting Solutions, Inc. www.windowswebhost.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Ali all fellow TBUDL members, Tuesday, November 30, 1999, 3:20:22 AM, Ali wrote in response to my saying: What's a Regular Expression, then? AM Let me quote a little excerpt from one of my applications since I find AM it difficult to define a regular expression in one sentence: AM ==8 AM A normal case-sensitive search for the string test string will AM look for and match the exact sequence of characters t e s t AM space s t r i n g. This is how all simple searches work. They AM are very single-minded in the sense that you must explicitly tell AM them exactly what you want to search for. For example, if you AM wanted to search for test string except that you didnt care how AM many spaces separated the two words, and, for that matter, they AM might be line feeds or carriage returns or tabs and not just AM spaces separating the words, you would have a hard time getting AM this done using a simple search. You would end up having to do a AM separate search for each possibility as in: AM testspacestring AM testtabstring AM testcrstring AM testlfstring AM testcrlfstring AM But what about the case where there are two spaces between the words? AM Or a combination of a space and a tab? Pretty soon youll probably AM give up and look for the words manually. Or individually AM Think of a Regular Expression as a string mold. Whereas a simple AM search string will find and match only exactly that string. A single AM Regular Expression will match a whole slew of strings that conform to AM your specifications. Just to whet your palette, here is a Regular AM Expression: AM test[spacetabcrlf]+string AM =8 AM I could send you the whole document if you are interested. Please do. AM Regular expressions can be quite useful in filtering but doesn't AM address the type of functionality that you've been querying. PF I believe that Outgoing Mail filters work on all messages sent. All PF messages being sent may actually go through the Outbox. I've never PF really noticed. As Ali has pointed out, Outgoing Mail filters work on any folder when re-filtering, if the Outgoing Mail filters set is selected for it. When you have a program that's as powerful as this one, with a built in commitment to get down to the roots of things, it's going to attract users who share that vision, that commitment, and this helps make things more consistent, more congruent, which is as things should be. Constructive criticism is both positive and necessary. We have to help the developers be aware of the issues, and these are real issues. AM Agreed. Unfortunately, I do. And this is logical, since I *don't* want to go around looking into all my accounts and folders to see what came in, or even remember be how many messages were in each one before the last mail download. Nor am I going to be able to read all the mail in those boxes, or even want to. AM It would seem to me that you wish to first filter mail that you know AM you will not be reading right away. The incoming message filter set AM should take care of that. AM How about using a read messages filter set for the remaining new AM messages left in the Inbox? In so doing, after reading each remaining AM message in the inbox, it's filtered to it's appropriate destination AM folder upon moving to the next message. I would do that via manual only and re-filtering, as the filter would activate on leaving the message, otherwise. (Sometimes I will look briefly at a message and leave it open until later, or just mark it with parked for later). AM You may add to filter rules as needed that the read message be AM marked unread upon filtering if you like. This may be especially AM necessary if you're just scanning the messages and not really AM reading them in their entirety. In this scenario, would the message never the less be moved? So the boxes are *always* going to show unread mail in them, which I can either weed out as I go by filtering incrementally or by doing it manually, which was done more easily with my last email client, since mail from all accounts was viewed and sorted by the column selected (date, account, subject, sender etc.). TB v. 2 is what may save the day in this regard. AM Doesn't simply clicking the mouse on each column header sort the mail AM according to date, subject, sender etc.? Yes, but there is no account column. In that program, a single inbox accommodated all incoming messages but the receiving account was distinguished by the column. Also, since TB lets me flag only by using parked, I could not move those manually w/o loosing the "flag", which would not be true if filtering, instead (The parked flag is left *and* the message is moved). Alternatively, I could refuse to include parked messages, which would then be left, and these could then be moved manually to their own separate flagged only folder, for that classification (say, a list). AM You should also look at the View |
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Ali all fellow TBUDL members, Sunday, November 28, 1999, 5:14:09 PM, Ali wrote in response to my saying: after selecting for Read Mail (for instance), "Manual filters only" can be selected or not, whereas when creating a filter itself, it can be either active, manual only, both or neither. What then, would neither do? Would it still filter (after all it *is* a rule). Neither does nothing, just as not active does nothing. AM The difference with having only 'active' checked and 'active' and AM 'manual only' checked concerns incoming mail only. This is not true if the filter is a "read message" filter. In that case the filter's action will be implemented upon leaving an opened message, unless it's marked unread again first, unless it's also manual only.. And I assume the same is true for Reply filters. AM It has nothing to do with a re-filter operation. A re-filter AM operation reruns the filter rules that are usually run on incoming AM mail automatically, as well the rules that are reserved to be run AM manually. Depending on the rule set selected, and whether you want to run active not manual only or not. AM If during the re-filter operation, you specify that only AM 'manual only' filters are run then the automatic filters for AM incoming mail will not be rerun. By George you are right. This qualifies the statement above, which should include: Unless you select manual only, then active filters that are *not* also manual only will not be triggered. AM Selecting 'manual only' during a re-filter operation will prevent the AM automatic incoming mail filters from running. This switch has no AM effect on whether or not manual filters are run and I agree with this AM system. Aren't you doing a manual operation when re-filtering? So AM isn't this when manual filters should be run? :) Since my past email client had an accounts column, it was easy for me to keep house manually, depending on source, content, importance, follow up required etc. and the decision I'd make at the moment. In TB I *can't* do that, without destroying my parked flags (that's what they are to me, and all they are to me). AM Well see if you get my logic: AM a) To get a filter to work *at all*, you have to have the 'active' AMswitch checked. AM b) An incoming filter with only the 'active' switch checked, is a AMfilter that will work on incoming mail and are run on any new mail AMreceived. These filters are also run during re-filter operations AMcarried out on *any* folder provided the 'manual only' option is AM*not* checked. Once again, you appear to be ignoring read reply message filters, but otherwise we agree. AM c) An incoming filter with both the 'active' and 'manual only' options AMchecked will only be run during manual filtering operations, AMnamely, folder re-filtering exercises. The 'manual only' toggle AMswitch in the folder re-filtering process, doesn't affect the AMrunning of manual filters but, in fact, affects the running of the AM'automatic' filter rules. *That* was what I wasn't capturing. It *prevents* active only filters from being triggered. AMBecause of this, the only way to prevent a 'manual only' filter AMfrom running during a re-filter operation is to uncheck the 'manual AMonly' option in each rules properties. Which would then make it an active rule. If you didn't want it to run at all, you would be better off by unchecking the active option. AM It would seem to me that you need functionality that Alexander AM Kiselev made reference to and that his 'filter sets' support. In AM The Bats! terminology, you seem to need the ability to create AM *multiple* incoming filter sets made up of rules to be run 'manual AM only' so that you may select which set you need to run at a AM particular time. I say this because you are sounding as if you AM need only particular 'manual only' filters to run during each AM re-filter operation instead of all of them at the same time. Very good Ali, that's it. But - I can see a need to filter automatically *first* so that I *can* filter a folder without invoking all rules. I would need the mail divided already, so that the rule or rules applied apply only to the mail in that box, so that the conditions met will not activate the criteria of all the other rules pertaining to the account. But I am not going to change to Pegasus, I am going to get to the bottom of this, and work with this group *and* the developers, if needed (if these things really do show the lack of a consistent and comprehensive logic structure, rather than one I haven't yet discovered). AM I hope my input has helped. :) No question about it. Right now it did. (If you don't try this stuff out, you can't see what it does). And I can see that you more or less do have it down. I have been lumping Read Messages" and "Replied Messages" in with "Incoming Mail" conceptually, when as you point out, these are dealt with separately (not
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Paula all fellow TBUDL members, Monday, November 29, 1999, 12:13:40 AM, Paula wrote in response to my saying in relation to Alex's claim that the filtering system he's using in Pegasus is not possible using TB: I would also like anyone who believes that this *can* be done using TB (as Paula suggested), to elucidate on that as well: PF Why don't you give us some specifics about your needs and we can PF help construct some methods for you? At the moment, doing what Alex said he's doing in Pegasus would be a good place to start. I would prefer that because the logic he describes is very similar to what I want to and have begun to do; and he's already written it out, w/ a little reformatting added by me in my post. (If you don't mind). Best regards, Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
(long but substantial) Hello Paula all fellow TBUDL members, Finally, I make the rule active *and* manual only and boom. It works. For all practical purposes then, *only active filters filter*, and they can be manual or not manual. PF Your confusion stems from being able to check "Manual only" on the PF filters page without having to check active. Is that "my" confusion or is that simply an option not explained in the TB help file? (Enter the word "manual" in the help index and all you'll get is manual connection to the internet). TBUDL *is* the TB help file. See anything below about active or manual only filtering? Sorting Office is implemented in The Bat! for auto-classification of incoming, outgoing, read and replied mail. Each of the above mentioned message flows can be sorted by folder, accordingly to its set of rules. Each rule is determined by its name, the source folder (for incoming mail it is always Inbox, for outgoing - Outbox and this cannot be changed), the target folder, sets of signal strings and defined actions. To create a new rule, open Account | Sorting Office/Filters dialogue, select the desired rule set (depending on what type of messages you want to classify) in the tree, and press New button. Related topics: Signal strings Filtering actions Using special syntax in signal strings Using The Bat! as a Maling List Server That's it. Check out the related topics if you like, but nothing's there on this point. PF I suppose this is done to allow users to activate and deactivate PF filters that they wish to apply manually. We are left to suppose, that's for sure. But nothing indicates the following: PF All filters must have the "Active" option checked to work. That is exactly the point. From there they can be either automatic or manual only. PF The "Manual filters only" option on the re-filter dialog is intended PF only to give you the option of applying only those filters that you have PF designated as "Manual only". Meaning that they don't get activated *until* *you* activate them. This problem could have been avoided simply by making the manual only option contingent on selecting active first, a very common button implementation (it would be grayed out until selecting active). Now, I would assume that have a active rule with manual only means that without selecting "manual only" it won't take effect when re-filtering, but this is not true - it will anyway. PF Right, thus the option on the re-filter dialog for "Manual filters PF only". Re-filtering without checking that option will invoke all active PF filters, regardless of whether or not the "Manual only" option is PF checked for the filter. The funky part is that the re-filtering menu asks for this, uselessly. PF So, what you have is: PF Active, Manual Only not checked - operate automatically when triggered PF by event OR operate on re-filtering if "Manual filters only" is not PF selected. Correct. PF Active, Manual Only checked - operate only on re-filtering. If "Manual PF filters only" is selected on re-filtering only these filters will be PF invoked. That's the whole ball of wax. PF Filters that are not marked "Active" are deactivated regardless of PF whether or not "Manual only" is checked. They are there to use if and when they're changed to active status. But none if this is explained anywhere. You yourself are just discovering these details. I don't find a consistent logic here. PF There is a logic there once you discover it. It doesn't seem PF counterintuitive to me that, for example, a filter has to be active to PF work. Right, there's a logic to it. The point is that it's a totally undocumented logic, which isn't very logical in itself when you consider that there's a universe of logical patterns that could be implemented for a given purpose. There is generally no one way of doing *anything*. But the logic chosen, whatever it is, should be specified. Call it what it is. Why be a party to an absence? TB needs a decent help file, but between TBUDL, fiddling around oneself and even resorting to the developers once in a while, the show will go on. I have been lumping Read Messages" and "Replied Messages" in with "Incoming Mail" conceptually, when as you point out, these are dealt with separately (not included when filtering "Incoming Mail"). PF This was an error on my part, going back to earlier versions of TB. PF Incoming Mail filters do, in fact, operate on _all_ messages in the PF InBox when using re-filtering. Sorry to add to the confusion. Your intentions were good. And that's what I mean about logic. There are a lot of ways to look at anything. When developing anything (software or otherwise) the important thing is to analyze the situation (determine options), set priorities, chart the most all inclusive and elegant course you can and then stick to it. But you've got to explain it, or some one
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
(Long, but important for adequate TB functionality, if possible).
Hello Paula and all you fellow TBteers,
Friday, November 26, 1999, 1:48:01 PM, Paula wrote in response to my saying:
I see a need for activating a given filter without having to
activate all filters for a given folder at once, as seems to be
the case at present.
PF The two options - active and manual only - are not related in the way
PF implied here.
PF A rule can be active or not.
PF An active rule can be manual only or not (automatic).
My understanding then regarding rules (the filter itself is a rule
linked to an account) is:
A rule can be either:
1).- "active";
2).- "manual only";
3).- "active" AND "manual only"; or
4).- NEITHER "active" nor "manual only"
An "active" rule that is *not* "manual only", takes effect
automatically; and
A "manual only" rule takes effect only on selecting "Folder /
Re-filter", the "rule set to apply", and then manual only.
An "active" rule that is *also* "manual only", takes effect only on
selecting "Folder / Re-filter" and the "rule set to apply" with or
without selecting "manual only";
That is what I concluded, but it turns out that this is not so.
On re-filtering (that is, filtering manually rather than actively),
after selecting for Read Mail (for instance), "Manual filters
only" can be selected or not, whereas when creating a filter itself,
it can be either active, manual only, both or neither. What then,
would neither do? Would it still filter (after all it *is* a rule).
I tried it. A rule that is NEITHER "active" nor "manual only" does
nothing. It is an adornment, an ornament.
I changed the same rule to manual only (to double check the
effectiveness of my strings. It still does nothing. I change strings
and other variables, i.e w/ different combinations of rule set ("read"
although 2 of the four in this folder were replied to), used just one
universal string, put the action (move the messages) in the copy to:
selection also. But no message is filtered.
Finally (I am pissed off at this point), I make the rule active *and*
manual only and boom. It works. For all practical purposes then, *only
active filters filter*, and they can be manual or not manual.
Now, I would assume that have a active rule with manual only means
that without selecting "manual only" it won't take effect when
re-filtering, but this is not true - it will anyway.
I don't find a consistent logic here. I see rules that don't do
anything, and rules that shouldn't work at certain times that
none-the-less do. But I am not going to change to Pegasus, I am going
to get to the bottom of this, and work with this group *and* the
developers, if needed (if these things really do show the lack of a
consistent and comprehensive logic structure, rather than one I
haven't yet discovered).
This leads me to conclude that the programming focus for manual (on
demand, user controlled) filtering should be shifted to the filter
instead of the folder, with an activate "all filters" option for those
who want it done as it is presently.
PF The focus of TB's filtering is ostensibly on the status of the message,
PF not the folder.
You are right. I had been focusing *only* on the distinction between
Incoming Mail and Outgoing Mail,in relation to filters. I have simply
been ignoring the difference between "Read Messages" and "Replied
Messages" on the one hand, and unread messages in the Inbox on the
other.
I have been lumping Read Messages" and "Replied Messages" in with
"Incoming Mail" conceptually, when as you point out, these are dealt
with separately (not included when filtering "Incoming Mail").
I *was* thinking in terms of folders, because you manually filter on a
given folder and activate your filters from the folder menu, in
relation to the folder currently selected in the folder pane, and the
names of the rules I made relate to the folders I created on the
destination end. But that (BT!) was me, not TB!. (feeble joke).
And there are further distinctions.
[The following was written *before* the above].
Also - According to TB!'s "help" file, when two locations are
selected for a given string, *both* conditions must be satisfied, when
I assumed that I was filtering for *either* condition. This explains
why some filters weren't functioning.
Not only that, I wasn't taking into account the alternatives, actions
and options involved. One of the options permits the use of "regular
expressions", but I find nothing in the help file that refers directly
to that, although there *is* something on "Special syntax", "used for
signal strings", which I assume is what that refers to.
PF So, we have rules that apply to Incoming Mail, Outgoing
PF Mail, Read Messages, and Replied Messages.
PF But, what Incoming Mail means is unread messages in the Inbox.
*That's* what I was missing.
PF When you create an Incoming Mail rule, the messages are filtered
PF from the InBox, not directly from the server.
Messages already download with TB.
PF
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Alexander all fellow TBUDL members, Sunday, November 28, 1999, 3:59:02 PM, Alexander wrote what follows below (reformatted) and I would like him to explain why the filtering he describes in relation to the messages he receives (all of which is close to what I have in mind, particularly the filtering done to those messages dealing with his work), can't be fully implemented in TB. I would also like anyone who believes that this *can* be done using TB (as Paula suggested), to elucidate on that as well: AVK Pegasus, for example, lets you: AVK 1. Create almost any type of filter AVK 2. Save any number of "individual" filters as a "filter set" AVK 3. To *manually* apply any filter set to any folder, just choose the AVKfilter set you need from the list of filter sets available on the AVKsystem) AVK 4. To "attach" any filter set to any folder as either an "opening AVKfilter set" (which means that the folder will be filtered with this AVKset whenever this folder is opened) or a "closing filter set" AVK(respectively, will be applied when this folder is closed), OR both AVK(then you can attach different filter sets as "opening" and AVK"closing" ones). AVK 5. To create "Copies to self" filters, that will trigger when the copy AVKof just sent message is created in the "Sent" folder. AVK This functionality supersedes the one currently offered by The Bat!: ... AVK I believe that the approach to filtering implemented by Pegasus AVK author is more flexible. I needn't the "read filters" for AVK example, *i* want to rather be able to create a "general- type" AVK filter that will trigger on the messages that *have been read*. AVK In Pegasus, I filter all the incoming messages in the Inbox AVK (for example, TB lists traffic goes to Unread\TBUDL and AVK Unread\TBBETA respectively), thus the Inbox is left with AVK something about 20--30 messages private messages directed to me AVK that wouldn't fall into any existing category AND receipt/reading AVK confirmations (the latter get moved to the "\Delivery confs" AVK every time Inbox is closed, where they are kept for 5 days then AVK deleted). AVK Then when I have time to read the lists traffic, I go to Unread\TBUDL AVK (for example) and read-delete-read the messages in it. Those messages AVK I want to keep I just don't delete: after I close the TBUDL folder, all AVK the read messages in it get automatically moved to "Archive\Mailing AVK Lists\TBUDL", where they are kept forever. AVK With the messages dealing with my work the idea applied is somewhat AVK more complex: AVK From Inbox these messages get auto-filtered to Unread\Work\YYY AVK depending on the sender, AVK Then upon reading they get moved to "Work\YYY", where they are AVK kept for a month AVK and then moved finally to Archive\Work\YYY. AVK This filtering structure can be partially mimicked with TB, but AVK not in its entirety. This is exactly what I'd appreciate hearing in greater depth, as well as any dissenting opinions. ... AVK SY, Alex AVK (St.Petersburg, Russia) Thanks in advance, Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hi, I'm a bit confused about this whole thread here. I'll admit that I'm pretty new to The Bat!, but I've been trying to set up my parents on e-mail. My Dad is slowly trying to build up his functionality, so we've been exploring the filters. Every time we add a new filter, we add either Incoming filters or Outgoing filters, then we re-filter his Inbox or Sent folders respectively. Every time, TB! asks us which filter sets we want to filter*, and we choose all of them except manual filters only. TB! then filters all messages (read or unread) properly. So what is my confusion, you might ask. Well, why are people saying that incoming filters are only for unread messages, and read filters are only for read messages, etc.? Isn't there a simple solution to this? I did not even realize there was a difference between the incoming, read and replied filters. Thanks for writing, Januk Aggarwal [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Saturday, November 27, 1999, 12:04:48 PM, Paula Ford wrote: On Saturday, November 27, 1999, Alexander V. Kiselev wrote: This filtering structure can be _partially_ mimicked with TB, but not in its entirety:-( OTOH, it proved to be very useful for me, hence I'll probably think *very* hard before leaving it for something else... Not to defend TB's filtering approach, but I don't see anything in your description that you can't do with TB. The difference would be that TB moves read messages when read rather than on 'closing' the folder, and if you wanted to keep the messages in the folder until you were done reading all messages, you could set the rule to manual and re-filter. Although when I first got TB I found the filtering oddly constructed, I can't think of anything now that I need to do that I can't. Let's take Douglas, for example. I can't say that I understand exactly what it is he is trying to do, but let's make some assumptions. He gets alot of email, much of it from mailing lists. He wants to review most, but not all of his new mail in the InBox before it is filtered. So, first, he creates rules for Incoming Mail and sets them to automatic (leaving manual only unchecked). Next, if he wants to filter unread messages, he creates Incoming Mail rules, then sets them to manual only. If he wants to filter read messages, he creates Read Messages rules and sets them to manual. That will pretty much do it, except I think what Douglas wants to do is to filter messages from his InBox incrementally for which TB would have to allow users to invoke filters from a list of all filters. For the most part, though, TB's filtering is fine. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Ali all fellow TBUDL members, Thursday, November 25, 1999, 7:54:22 PM, Ali wrote in response to my saying more or less: In any case, I see a need for activating a given filter without having to activate all filters for a given folder at once, as seems to be the case at present. AM I don't see how you could avoid doing this manually, i.e., going AM through the filters and making them manual only or neither active nor AM manual only, as you need to. Thanks Ali. This comment raises the question of *what* is a neither "manual only" nor "active filter"? Simply a third option, or rather, an option in the non-active category to distinguish it from manual only filter? If so, this suggests that only two options are available for non-active filters, coded as "manual only" and neither "manual only" nor "active". This leads me to conclude that the programming focus for manual (on demand, user controlled) filtering should be shifted to the filter instead of the folder, with an activate "all filters" option for those who want it done as it is presently. Activating filters selectively on demand may not be much different than selecting manually for column (and I'm told the option of inserting an "account" column may be offered in v. 2) or manually doing a search using a given set of criteria and then moving the files (which is what I have to do now). It *would* be faster though. And how to deal with parked items would have to be dealt with separately - a separate rule could be invoked. Best regards, Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
