On 10 Nov 2020, at 16:06, Martin S Taylor wrote:
The workaround I use is to define a third smart (dummy) mailbox, C.
Then:
C is defined to contain everything which meets [set of other
conditions]
A is defined to contain messages which are in *any* of the mailboxes:
B or C.
Thanks, Martin! (
On 11 Nov 2020, at 19:10, Bill Cole wrote:
Create mailbox C with all of those other conditions.
Create mailbox A which includes all messages in B and all in C, i.e.
with B and C as sources and no conditions.
That's what I just said!
MST
___
mai
On 10 Nov 2020, at 15:43, Shoshanna Green wrote:
Setting B as a source mailbox for A would mean that A's conditions
would be applied to messages in B and the messages that meet them
would be included in A, but messages in B that do not meet them
wouldn't be. What I want is to define A with a n
Shoshanna:
On 10 Nov 2020, at 20:43, Shoshanna Green wrote:
What I want is to define A with a nonexclusive OR: A's conditions need
to be along the lines of
ANY OF:
- is contained in B
- [set of other conditions]
I've had this problem, too, and it is awkward, isn't it? You'd think you
cou
Setting B as a source mailbox for A would mean that A's conditions would
be applied to messages in B and the messages that meet them would be
included in A, but messages in B that do not meet them wouldn't be. What
I want is to define A with a nonexclusive OR: A's conditions need to be
along th
What stops you from setting mailbox B as the source for mailbox A?
If you do that, then the conditions you set for A apply only to mails
that are shown in B.
You can have multiple source mailboxes for smart mailboxes, those being
either true mailboxes, combo mailboxes or smart mailboxes.
On 10
Is it possible to set up a condition for smart mailbox A that will catch
all messages that are in smart mailbox B, without just copying all the
conditions for B over to A? Copying them over requires manually keeping
the two sets of conditions identical; if I make a change to B I have to
remembe
