Hello Maurice,
1) Filters should 'collect' all actions-to-be-taken and perform only
the last move on multiple moves.
M because it would reduce the possibilities of what you can do with
M filters right now.
Would you care to elaborate on this? Why would that be true? Can you
give an
Hello Boris,
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:58:36 +0100 GMT (03/12/2004, 02:58 +0700 GMT),
Boris Anders wrote:
What you are looking for with these container filters are not
filters at all, I would think. You need a group name functionality.
BA Yes, container filters aren't filters, but dummy filter.
Hello Boris,
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:05:05 +0100 GMT (18/11/2004, 20:05 +0700 GMT),
Boris Anders wrote:
2) It should be possible to create a purely organizational container
level (sub)filter where processing of filters further down the list
occurs automatically if none of the subfilters
Hello Thomas,
Thomas Fernandez wrote (in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]):
2) It should be possible to create a purely organizational container
level (sub)filter where processing of filters further down the list
occurs automatically if none of the subfilters yielded an action.
Yes, this is a nice
Hello Maurice,
Maurice Snellen wrote (in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]):
2) It should be possible to create a purely organizational container
level (sub)filter where processing of filters further down the list
occurs automatically if none of the subfilters yielded an action.
If I have understood
On Saturday, November 20, 2004 at 12:32 Mau [M] wrote:
1) Filters should 'collect' all actions-to-be-taken and perform only
the last move on multiple moves.
M because it would reduce the possibilities of what you can do with
M filters right now.
Would you care to elaborate on this? Why would
Hello Maurice,
snipped quite a bit
This leads me to two wishes:
1) Filters should 'collect' all actions-to-be-taken and perform only
the last move on multiple moves.
As I think Boris has mentioned, that would probably be difficult to
achieve with current NFS implementation. Anyway, I think
Hello MAU,
Mau wrote (in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]):
2) It should be possible to create a purely organizational container
level (sub)filter where processing of filters further down the list
occurs automatically if none of the subfilters yielded an action.
If I have understood correctly what you
Hello Boris,
2) It should be possible to create a purely organizational container
level (sub)filter where processing of filters further down the list
occurs automatically if none of the subfilters yielded an action.
If I have understood correctly what you want to do I would also
oppose to
Hello Boris,
Boris Anders wrote (in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I don't know if there is a logical error in my idea, but I try this
immediately after send this message.
Ok - I faild. But I think because of a bug in set user params and
additional params since (including) 3.0.16: So here is my
On Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 22:00 Boris Anders wrote:
Is there a but here or have I constructed my filters wrongly?
Can't see a logical error. Your filter seems to be correct else it
wouldn't work on refilter. Further more, I heard from (one or two)
other user(s) similar problems
Hallo Maurice,
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:05:31 +0100GMT (18-11-2004, 13:05 +0100, where
I live), you wrote:
MS By removing the catchall filter and putting the 'move to @Unhandled'
MS folder back in the topmost parent, the filters started behaving as
MS expected.
What if you use a condition to that
Hello Maurice,
Maurice Snellen wrote (in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Is there a but here or have I constructed my filters wrongly?
Can't see a logical error.
Actually, in total there are really a whole lot of filters there,
and it proved that I did make an error in the logic.
So there is/was
Hello Maurice,
Maurice Snellen wrote (in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Is there a but here or have I constructed my filters wrongly?
Can't see a logical error. Your filter seems to be correct else it
wouldn't work on refilter. Further more, I heard from (one or two)
other user(s) similar problems
14 matches
Mail list logo
