Hi Vilius,
Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
kept on the server.
DC that's not the problem with IMAP, it's the beauty of IMAP. It's the
DC whole point.
This also goes into another philosophy: Do we want to keep our own
data or do we want to put all
Hi Dwight,
On Saturday, June 16, 2012, 9:03:10 AM, RS (FEDARA) wrote:
Another matter is that you need a server to store so much data and it
likely to increase a cost (my e-mail box is about plus 1-1.2GB each
year).
I just priced a few 2T drives, and the cost per gigabite runs in
Sveiki,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 8:05:18 AM, you wrote:
Hello Scuddy,
Friday, June 15, 2012, 9:49:07 PM, you wrote:
TF With IMAP I have only the headers on the computer. I want to open a
TF mail and the attachments, it takes ages which I have to spend in front
TF of the computer.
smn Why
On Saturday, June 16, 2012, 12:05:18 AM, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
kept on the server.
that's not the problem with IMAP, it's the beauty of IMAP. It's the
whole point.
--
Dwight A. Corrin
316.303.9385 phone ahead
Hi Dwight,
Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
kept on the server.
that's not the problem with IMAP, it's the beauty of IMAP. It's the
whole point.
Up to the moment your e-mail box is equal to about 8GB and something
happens so you need to reinstall
Hello Thomas,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 12:05:18 AM, you wrote:
Then I would have IMAP emulating POP...
The main reason I use IMAP is the ability to have two computers with the same
messages on both, all sent messages on both, all messages I have read marked as
read, etc. If you only use one
Hello RS,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 9:03:10 PM, you wrote:
Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
kept on the server.
that's not the problem with IMAP, it's the beauty of IMAP. It's the
whole point.
RF Up to the moment your e-mail box is equal to about
Hello Vilius,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 1:26:23 PM, you wrote:
Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
kept on the server. I keep 14 days worth of mail on the server, older
mails are on my laptop and my PC. If I keep more than say, 2,000 or
3,000 messages on the
Hello Dwight,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 6:03:22 PM, you wrote:
Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
kept on the server.
DC that's not the problem with IMAP, it's the beauty of IMAP. It's the
DC whole point.
This also goes into another philosophy: Do we
Hello Stuart,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 9:40:37 PM, you wrote:
Then I would have IMAP emulating POP...
S The main reason I use IMAP is the ability to have two computers with the same
S messages on both, all sent messages on both, all messages I have read marked
as
S read, etc. If you only use
Thank you for your support! I thought I was the only one who is happy
with POP.
I like POP too! :)
--
Rick
There is no snooze button for a cat that wants breakfast.
-Anonymous
v5.1.6.4 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 3
Using all POP accounts
I download all images
Thank you for your support! I thought I was the only one who is happy
with POP.
I like POP too! :)
I dont want to be the moderator here, but the topis does not reflect
the subject.
--
Vili
The Bat 4.1.11.13 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 3
Sveiki,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 6:32:12 PM, you wrote:
Hello Vilius,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 1:26:23 PM, you wrote:
Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
kept on the server. I keep 14 days worth of mail on the server, older
mails are on my laptop and my PC.
Sveiki,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 6:34:39 PM, you wrote:
Hello Dwight,
Saturday, June 16, 2012, 6:03:22 PM, you wrote:
Another problem with IMAP is that the messages have to actually be
kept on the server.
DC that's not the problem with IMAP, it's the beauty of IMAP. It's the
DC whole
On Saturday, June 16, 2012, 9:03:10 AM, RS (FEDARA) wrote:
Another matter is that you need a server to store so much data and it
likely to increase a cost (my e-mail box is about plus 1-1.2GB each
year).
I just priced a few 2T drives, and the cost per gigabite runs in the
neighborhood
On Saturday, June 16, 2012, 10:34:39 AM, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
This also goes into another philosophy: Do we want to keep our own
data or do we want to put all our eggs in one cloud whose keepers we
have to trust.
To me, this depends on whether I ever leave the house.
--
Dwight A.
Hello Dwight,
Thursday, May 3, 2012, 8:15:48 PM, you wrote:
Just picking this post to throw in another argument for POP you guys
may not be aware of: Slow internet connection.
DC so is it faster when you download same data with POP than with IMAP?
DC And will you be switching to POP for
Hello Thomas,
A reminder of what Thomas Fernandez typed on:
Friday, June 15, 2012 at 21:24:20 GMT +0700
TF With IMAP I have only the headers on the computer. I want to open a
TF mail and the attachments, it takes ages which I have to spend in front
TF of the computer.
Why not set it to
Hello Scuddy,
Friday, June 15, 2012, 9:49:07 PM, you wrote:
TF With IMAP I have only the headers on the computer. I want to open a
TF mail and the attachments, it takes ages which I have to spend in front
TF of the computer.
smn Why not set it to download everything and then you have the best
Hi,
With IMAP, only the headers would be downloaded. For each message and
especially their attachments, I would have to download while waiting
in front of the computer.
Theoretically, no: There is the option to have TheBat download
everything at once.
Granted, the option hasn't worked like
On Wednesday, May 2, 2012, 9:28:57 PM, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
Just picking this post to throw in another argument for POP you guys
may not be aware of: Slow internet connection.
so is it faster when you download same data with POP than with IMAP?
And will you be switching to POP for
On Wednesday, May 2, 2012, 9:28:57 PM, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
Just picking this post to throw in another argument for POP you guys
may not be aware of: Slow internet connection.
so is it faster when you download same data with POP than with IMAP?
And will you be switching to POP
Hello RS,
Rest of the info was correct. It's about 2am here now and it's
probably a high time for me to get to bed.
Luckily, most of us don't live in China and have to worry about
security to that extent. Do you have TrueCrypt set up for hidden
volumes and plausible deniability?
If
Hi Tony,
TO Luckily, most of us don't live in China and have to worry about
TO security to that extent. Do you have TrueCrypt set up for hidden
TO volumes and plausible deniability?
Only a small one for most important files (ex: passwords and user
names file) but I made it rather
Hello Rick,
Monday, April 30, 2012, 7:50:41 AM, you wrote:
(Delayed sending already exists in v4).
R Yes but it was finally FIXED by v5.
No problem, I am not using this feature.
R As for lesser bugs, ONE irritant is that when exiting templates (I
R use a couple of folder templates) AUTOWRAP,
Hello Paul,
Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 10:57:05 PM, you wrote:
The message base is not local.
R Is that not the nature of the beast? If you want security, us POP
PVN Yup!
Just picking this post to throw in another argument for POP you guys
may not be aware of: Slow internet connection.
I
Hello Paul,
IMO IMAP is the only driving force for v5. IMAP is not a part of my
future for reasons of security that cannot be overcome with IMAP.
What security issues do you see in IMAP?
--
Best regards,
Tonymailto:t...@parkinch.co.uk
The Bat! 5.0.36.2
IMO IMAP is the only driving force for v5. IMAP is not a part of my
future for reasons of security that cannot be overcome with IMAP.
TH What security issues do you see in IMAP?
The message base is not local.
Is that not the nature of the beast? If you want security, us POP
--
Rick
Hi Raymund,
RA if your mail is that interesting to an attacker he/she/it will
RA find a way to get it from your computer as well...
You're right in your statement but cost vs value is a question here :)
In my case no one will try to get my data ; way too much work to do :)
1. True Crypt
Sveiki,
Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 6:37:48 PM, you wrote:
5/1/2012 11:36 AM
Hi Tony,
On 5/1/2012 Tony Hoare wrote:
IMO IMAP is the only driving force for v5. IMAP is not a part of my
future for reasons of security that cannot be overcome with IMAP.
TH What security issues do you see in
Hi All,
1. True Crypt Encrypted HDD (Serpent-Twofish-AES with SHA512 hash)
and encrypted not with a password but SHA-512 keyfile,
Mistyped here ; I wrote OS but meant other containers.
OS is AES encrypted with a password and containers are
Serpent-Twofish-AES encrypted
Hallo Raymund,
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:04:13 +0200GMT (29-4-2012, 9:04 , where I
live), you wrote:
Does anybody still have any issues with filters? If so, kindly advise
whether you are using POP or IMAP.
RT I have a filter that moves a received message from an IMAP account to
RT a common
Hello Thomas,
Does anybody still have any issues with filters? If so, kindly advise
whether you are using POP or IMAP.
I use a number of Incoming, Outgoing, Read and Replied filters (account
filters, not common) and they are all working fine in my POP accounts.
--
Best regards,
Miguel
Raymund,
On 29-04-2012 09:04, you wrote in mid:16310293318.20120429090...@gmx.de:
I have a filter that moves a received message from an IMAP account to
a common folder and afterwards set it to read.
Move works fine. Changing the status doesn't.
Moving on IMAP works for me 40-60% of the time.
Hello MAU,
Sunday, April 29, 2012, 2:40:53 PM, you wrote:
Does anybody still have any issues with filters? If so, kindly advise
whether you are using POP or IMAP.
M I use a number of Incoming, Outgoing, Read and Replied filters (account
M filters, not common) and they are all working fine in
4/29/2012 10:19 AM
Hi Thomas,
On 4/29/2012 Thomas Fernandez wrote:
TF Over 100 filters though, that's why I am reluctant: If it ain't broke,
TF don't fix it.
Precisely!
TF Maybe it's time for a little prep-talk again. In a nut-shell, why
TF should I (POP-user) upgrade to v5? I am not only
Hello Rick,
Sunday, April 29, 2012, 11:00:45 PM, you wrote:
4/29/2012 10:19 AM
Hi Thomas,
On 4/29/2012 Thomas Fernandez wrote:
TF Over 100 filters though, that's why I am reluctant: If it ain't broke,
TF don't fix it.
Precisely!
TF Maybe it's time for a little prep-talk again. In a
What concerns me are bugs. Which one of the less bugs are your pet
peeves?
Anyway, thanks for the feature of dragdrop images. Can anybody else
have a new feature they find useful?
Paste as plain text?
(Delayed sending already exists in v4).
Yes but it was finally FIXED by v5.
As for
Hello Joe,
My question is, did you have to completely delete everything and
install from scratch. I can't do that, I have too many filters and
lots of folders.
Filters can be exported and imported in text form as F.P. showed
earlier (copy/paste in Sorting Office).
If it's IMAP,
Hi,
After uninstallation, removal of AddData\The Bat!\MAIL and registry key,
reinstallation of TB 4, recreating the mailbox and filters and upgrading
back, filters work.
(I created MB from scratch - the messages were re-downloaded from the server
but all the settings were gone, of course.)
Thursday, December 15, 2011, 11:59:50 AM, you wrote:
Hi,
After uninstallation, removal of AddData\The Bat!\MAIL and registry key,
reinstallation of TB 4, recreating the mailbox and filters and upgrading
back, filters work.
(I created MB from scratch - the messages were re-downloaded from
Hi,
My question is, did you
have to completely delete everything and install from scratch. I can't do
that, I have too many filters and lots of folders.
just a short answer, its ~6am and work calls ;).
I case of 2 POP Accounts a made a backup of everything. After that i
uninstalled TB!,
Title: Re: Filters aren't always used automatically
I suspect the cause to be in base format differences/upgrade
procedures. After upgrading TB through a path developers didn't
anticipate (or through buggy versions), MB may have some internal
data in an invalid state that causes auto
Hi,
Am 12. Dezember 2011 04:05 schrieb Ivan Pozdeev v...@mail.mipt.ru:
Hello, tbbeta.
very unhappy to start that postings again.but: IMAP Filters still
broken and doesent work.
I imported the filters F.P. provided and, to my most surprise, discoveded that
incoming mail is filtered in
Hello Uwe,
Wednesday, August 17, 2011, 12:47:56 PM, you wrote:
FWIW, I have absolutely no problems with filters so far using 6 POP3
accounts (plus MyGate for usenet) and tons of filters.
Thanks for your note.
My filters stop at 14,000 Message and will progress no further. No
matter
Hello Rick,
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 21:01:37 -0400 GMT (15/Aug/11, 8:01 AM +0700 GMT),
Rick wrote:
R I am having almost no trouble with my filters, but I have all POP
R accounts, so I don't know if that makes a difference
Being a POP person myself, I am curious: What do you mean by almost
no
Hello Thomas,
Wednesday, August 17, 2011, 6:30:16 PM, you wrote:
Seeing that I rely heavily on filters and I have absolutely no trouble
with v4, I am reluctant to try v5. Maybe you can ease my fears.
FWIW, I have absolutely no problems with filters so far using 6 POP3
accounts (plus
Hello Uwe,
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:47:56 +0200 GMT (17/Aug/11, 23:47 PM +0700 GMT),
Uwe Steinfeld wrote:
Seeing that I rely heavily on filters and I have absolutely no trouble
with v4, I am reluctant to try v5. Maybe you can ease my fears.
US FWIW, I have absolutely no problems with
Hello Rick,
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 21:01:37 -0400 GMT (15/Aug/11, 8:01 AM +0700 GMT),
Rick wrote:
R I am having almost no trouble with my filters, but I have all POP
R accounts, so I don't know if that makes a difference
Being a POP person myself, I am curious: What do you mean by almost
no
Hello Ethan,
Sunday, August 14, 2011, 7:18:12 AM, you wrote:
EJM With the pathing fixed, the filters are not working for incoming mail.
What do you mean by pathing? We did only change a little bit an
algorithm that checks whether a move destination folder's name is
valid in the dialog window
Hello Ethan,
Monday, August 15, 2011, 4:06:37 AM, you wrote:
EJM I have over 200 filters. For me to rewrite all of them is a large
EJM amount of work.
I see a solution to export all the filters to a text file, so you will
be able to replace the wrong path in that file, copy it to
Hello Ethan,
Sunday, August 14, 2011, 12:18:12 AM, you wrote:
EJM With the pathing fixed, the filters are not working for incoming mail.
EJM Any advice?
Go back to an earlier version. No body seems to want them fixed here.
--
Best regards,
Richard
Hello Richard,
Sunday, August 14, 2011, 5:41:26 PM, you wrote:
Go back to an earlier version. No body seems to want them fixed here.
Richard, thanks so much for your advice.
Just wonder which version to down grade to at this point.
Any ideas.
Jerry
--
Ethan J Mings
President, The Desk
Hello Ethan,
Sunday, August 14, 2011, 6:18:01 PM, you wrote:
EJM Just wonder which version to down grade to at this point.
I'm at 5.0.20.1 but just for a couple of hours so I'm not sure all
filters are working (yet). Having not saved a lot of in-between
versions, I'll have to go back to 5.0.18
Hello Richard,
Sunday, August 14, 2011, 6:38:15 PM, you wrote:
I'm at 5.0.20.1 but just for a couple of hours so I'm not sure all
filters are working (yet). Having not saved a lot of in-between
versions, I'll have to go back to 5.0.18 and I don't remember if all
filters worked in that.
Hello Richard,
Sunday, August 14, 2011, 6:38:15 PM, you wrote:
I'm at 5.0.20.1 but just for a couple of hours so I'm not sure all
filters are working (yet). Having not saved a lot of in-between
versions, I'll have to go back to 5.0.18 and I don't remember if all
filters worked in that.
Hello Rick,
Sunday, August 14, 2011, 9:01:37 PM, you wrote:
I don't think everyone is having the trouble. It may be like all my
former trouble with delayed sending, it may be a small nasty bug that only
affects some people
I am having almost no trouble with my filters, but I have all POP
My problem is I am long time user. I just did an operating system
repair with Windows 7.
I installed a new version of The Bat. Somehow the filters are pathed
to the wrong directory. Therefore, the filters cannot work.
I have over 200 filters. For me to rewrite all of them is a
Hello Marek,
A reminder of what Marek Mikus typed on:
Tuesday, March 01, 2011 at 14:30:26 GMT +0100
MM user has filter with two conditions:
MM 1) nove message to folder
MM 2) mark message as read
MM When is received one message, it is correctly moved and marked as read.
MM But when are more
Hi,
one of that things i can confirm in that IMAP filterings-thing.
Do you have any word to my message with my filter ? Is there a cahnce to get
a debug-thabat to filter that problem out ?
F.P.
2011/3/1 Marek Mikus supp...@thebat.cz
Hello,
user has filter with two conditions:
1) nove
Hello,
user has filter with two conditions:
1) nove message to folder
2) mark message as read
When is received one message, it is correctly moved and marked as read.
But when are more messages received and filtered by 1 filter, all are moved
to folder, but not all are marked as read.
I
Hello Marek,
Sunday, January 16, 2011, 6:17:11 AM, you wrote:
MM when You create Read filter with moving message to another folder, select
MM message and wait until is marked as read, nothing happens, filter is not
MM triggered automatically.
MM reported in
Hello all,
Tuesday, January 26, 2010, Rick wrote:
I have 2 filters, one account filter that sorts mail into common
folders and then a common filter that moves all remaining mail to a
common folder inbox. This has always worked correctly
Now the account filter sorts a copy of the mail to
I have 2 filters, one account filter that sorts mail into common
folders and then a common filter that moves all remaining mail to a
common folder inbox. This has always worked correctly
Now the account filter sorts a copy of the mail to the correct
folder AND the (final) common filter is
Hello all,
Tuesday, January 26, 2010, Rick wrote:
I have 2 filters, one account filter that sorts mail into common
folders and then a common filter that moves all remaining mail to a
common folder inbox. This has always worked correctly
Now the account filter sorts a copy of the mail to the
Hello Rick,
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:19:09 -0500 GMT (26/01/2008, 20:19 +0700 GMT),
Rick Grunwald wrote:
When processing incoming mail, how much of a processing delay does
a filter have as far as getting mail from the ISP? Is the process
post receiving or during? What I am trying to determine
When processing incoming mail, how much of a processing delay does
a filter have as far as getting mail from the ISP? Is the process
post receiving or during? What I am trying to determine is, if
getting the mail from the ISP would be faster if I did not filter
the incoming mail real time
Hello Steven,
Sorry for such a late reply but I haven't been looking at the list
lately.
Is it already a known issue that the filters are not being processed
in order (from top to bottom) of the filter list?
No, it is not a know issue and I don't think it is even an issue at all.
I have been
Hi Vili,
on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 at 20:42 you wrote in message
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
among others:
Hello Roland,
my filters for outgoing mails don't work any more though I have not
changed anything. They are all under sent mails.
Has there changed anything in TheBat?
I cannot
Hi Vili,
on Thursday, July 6, 2006 at 13:09 you wrote in message
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
among others:
and the first part of the filter worked, it was put into my Sent
folder (I changed that), but the second did not, it did not change the
Color Group (I changed that to Red).
How stupid I
Hi Vili,
on Thursday, July 6, 2006 at 15:05 you wrote in message
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
among others:
Hello Roland,
How about 9Val's answer/solution? Did you try it? My incoming and
outgoing filters are working, but not yours..
I tried it, but also doesn't work! On the German beginner list
Hi Vili,
on Thursday, July 6, 2006 at 15:08 you wrote in message
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
among others:
Hello Roland,
How about 9Val's answer/solution? Did you try it? My incoming and
outgoing filters are working, but not yours..
I tried it, but also doesn't work! On the German beginner list
Hi Vili,
on Thursday, July 6, 2006 at 16:24 you wrote in message
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
among others:
Anyway, I tried it with this email (not real):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It works. It has the same format as what you described. Try to send an
email to this email address (fake address), and see
Hi Vili,
on Thursday, July 6, 2006 at 20:12 you wrote in message
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
among others:
No. We are testing OUTGOING filters, right? So, put
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
in the To: field when creating a new mail and send it, and watch if
the filter works.
It does not work!
--
Best
Hello Roland,
my filters for outgoing mails don't work any more though I have not
changed anything. They are all under sent mails.
Has there changed anything in TheBat?
I cannot confirm... But you can have specific filters. Would you share
one of your non-working filter with us? (i.e. copy
Hi Vili,
on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 at 19:29 you wrote in message
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
among others:
Hello Roland,
my filters for outgoing mails don't work any more though I have not
changed anything. They are all under sent mails.
Has there changed anything in TheBat?
I cannot
Hello Roland,
The error is in the filter condition, seems that
string [EMAIL PROTECTED] is regexp, so condition should be changed
from contains to matches
--
9Val
Hello all,
Monday, December 12, 2005, Maxim Masiutin wrote:
Who did experience a trouble that filters and OTFE work in
Password mode and don't work with hardware tokens (iKey or eToken)?
How can we reproduce this?
I have tested it today, I have created filter with two actions - Flag
the
Hello TheBat Beta List Members!!!
Someday, and that was in Monday evening, Peter wrote something like
this:
MM Who did experience a trouble that filters and OTFE work in Password mode
MM and don't work with hardware tokens (iKey or eToken)?
Me.
Me to.
The .63 serie is completely unusable
Hello Sebastian Murawski everyone else,
on 12-Dez-2005 at 20:39 you (Sebastian Murawski) wrote:
I have problems with new message templates in common folders.
Once more ;-) http://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=5367
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)
Let
Hello Marck,
Thursday, September 1, 2005, 6:39:42 AM, you wrote:
MDP They work neither automatically on mail receipt nor manually.
MDP Can anybody confirm this? A pretty serious bug IMO.
IMAP or POP? Do you have more specific examples?
--
Best regards,
Stuart
Hello Marck,
Okay - let's bring this one up again. I just added an OR condition
to an old filter and messages that used to be intercepted by that
filter ended up in my spam bucket (unfiltered).
Looking deeper, I find that, starting today and since making that
change to that one filter of
Dear Stuart,
@1-Sep-2005, 07:31 -0500 (01-Sep 13:31 UK time) Stuart Cuddy [SC] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck:
MDP They work neither automatically on mail receipt nor manually.
MDP Can anybody confirm this? A pretty serious bug IMO.
SC IMAP or POP?
POP. There's a surprise!
SC Do you
Dear Vili,
@1-Sep-2005, 09:17 -0400 (01-Sep 14:17 UK time) Vili [V] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck:
... snip
They work neither automatically on mail receipt nor manually.
Can anybody confirm this? A pretty serious bug IMO.
V I know, you are not a rookie, but is not it possible that
Dear Stuart,
@1-Sep-2005, 08:39 -0500 (01-Sep 14:39 UK time) Stuart Cuddy [SC] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck:
MDP This was the original filter:
SC Have you seen Vili's post about continue processing. When I paste
SC you filters none of them have continue processing set.
(See my reply
Dear Stuart,
@1-Sep-2005, 09:29 -0500 (01-Sep 15:29 UK time) Stuart Cuddy [SC] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck:
MDP I changed nothing. The filter was OR sender CONTAINS
MDP @underscore.org.uk. That means the filter was corrupt when
MDP repasted. I wonder if this is a symptom of the
Hello Thomas,
Monday, July 25, 2005, 2:09:00 AM, you wrote:
DE Filter 1 catches spam and moves it to a spam folder.
DE Filter 2 catches list and moves it to a list folder.
DE Which one should take preference if the message get caught by both ?
The one that is topmost, if Continue with other
Hello Thomas Fernandez everyone else,
on 25-Jul-2005 at 03:09 you (Thomas Fernandez) wrote:
ASK IIRC, the message is a fixed object during the filtering stage. If both
ASK filters move the message, you should have two copies in the two
destination
ASK folders (I haven't tried that however).
On 2005-07-24 at 20:32:54 David Elliott wrote:
Filter 1 catches spam and moves it to a spam folder.
Filter 2 catches list and moves it to a list folder.
Which one should take preference if the message get caught by both ?
Normally the first one, unless you check the option Continue
Hello David Elliott everyone else,
on 24-Jul-2005 at 20:32 you (David Elliott) wrote:
Which one should take preference if the message get caught by both ?
The one that comes first in your list of filters, I assume.
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)
I am
Hi David,
on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:32:54 +0100GMT (24.07.2005, 20:32 +0200GMT here),
you wrote:
DE Have I got this wrong, or did it change.
DE A message can get caught by a number of filters.
DE Filter 1 catches spam and moves it to a spam folder.
DE Filter 2 catches list and moves it to a list
Hello Peter and All,
Sunday, July 24, 2005, 7:44:21 PM, you wrote:
on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:32:54 +0100GMT (24.07.2005, 20:32 +0200GMT here),
you wrote:
DE Have I got this wrong, or did it change.
DE A message can get caught by a number of filters.
DE Filter 1 catches spam and moves it to a
Hello David Elliott everyone else,
on 24-Jul-2005 at 21:01 you (David Elliott) wrote:
DE Which one should take preference if the message get caught by both ?
The one that is topmost, if Continue with other filters is not
checked.
Yep that is checked. (Don't ask it gets complicated)
So the
Hello Alexander,
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:19:01 +0200 GMT (25/07/2005, 02:19 +0700 GMT),
Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
DE Filter 1 catches spam and moves it to a spam folder.
DE Filter 2 catches list and moves it to a list folder.
DE Which one should take preference if the message get caught by both ?
On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 at 4:54:45 AM [GMT -0500], Cees wrote:
is it just me or do filters (including 'Mark as Junk') not work with
an IMAP account?
Filters are working here for me.
Do you have 'autofiltering' setup in your account 'IMAP Tuning' options?
--
-= Allie Martin =-
The
On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 at 5:32:25 AM [GMT -0500], Cees wrote:
Yep... I do.
For each filter you setup, there is a tab called 'Folders'.
This defines the folders you wish the filter to work on. With POP3,
incoming filters will work only with the Inbox. However, with IMAP,
filtering may be
On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 at 5:38:30 AM [GMT -0500], Allie_M wrote:
For each filter you setup, there is a tab called 'Folders'.
This defines the folders you wish the filter to work on. With POP3,
incoming filters will work only with the Inbox. However, with IMAP,
filtering may be done
Hello Cees,
AM Filters are working here for me.
AM Do you have 'autofiltering' setup in your account 'IMAP Tuning' options?
C a picture tells more then a thousand words I believe... ;)
My fault, auto-filtering has no sence without 'When on-line refresh
folders every ..' checked.
--
Hi Arkady,
on Wed, 24 Nov 2004, at 09:50:55 [GMT +0100] Arkady wrote:
Checkbox Don not include Attachments in Filters - Actions -
Redirect does not work. Redirect action includes attachments anyway.
Confirmed - See https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=512
--
regards
Thomas
Hello Dierk Haasis everyone else
02-Nov-2004 19:09, you wrote:
Most messages meeting the filter criteria are moved and coloured,
sometimes messages are moved but not coloured.
Anybody else seeing this?
What happens when you manually re-filter the affected messages, does it
work then,
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
