On Sunday, November 28, 1999, Douglas Hinds wrote:
> I would also like anyone who believes that this *can* be done using TB
> (as Paula suggested), to elucidate on that as well:
> This is exactly what I'd appreciate hearing in greater depth, as well
> as any dissenting opinions.
Dissenting op
On Sunday, November 28, 1999, Douglas Hinds wrote:
> True, but that doesn't address the question of whether turning off the
> ticker to the main accounts inbox means that no ticker will be
> available for any of that account's subdirectories.
I tried this out and unread messages in subfolders ap
Paula Ford wrote:
> The Incoming Mail filters are confusingly misnamed since they operate
> manually on all messages in the InBox when invoked manually, not just
> "incoming message flows" as the Help describes them.
Agreed.
> Hmmm??? If you click on a folder other than the InBox, then re-f
On Sunday, November 28, 1999, Ali Martin wrote:
> Well see if you get my logic:
> a) To get a filter to work *at all*, you have to have the 'active'
>switch checked.
> b) An incoming filter with only the 'active' switch checked, is a
The Incoming Mail filters are confusingly misnamed since
Douglas Hinds wrote:
> 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
Alexander V. Kiselev wrote:
>> 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 th
On Sunday, November 28, 1999, Douglas Hinds wrote:
> 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.
Your confusion stems from being ab
Hello tracer & all fellow TBUDL members,
Saturday, November 27, 1999, 6:13:04 PM, tracer wrote in response to
my saying I was getting outgoing attachments put in my TB's attach file:
t> Not sure what the problem is ...
The problem was that I had sent myself a bcc copy of that message and
had f
Hello tracer & all fellow TBUDL members,
Saturday, November 27, 1999, 6:40:43 PM, tracer wrote in response to my saying:
Douglas>> I infer from this that by turning off the ticker to the main
Douglas>> accounts inbox, no ticker will be available for any of that
Douglas>> account's subdirectorie
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 t
Hi all,
In one of my almost inactive email accounts where I have no filters
defined, I decided to create a filter for a newsletter that I
regularly receive.
I decided to create the filter in the outgoing message filter set.
I created the filter using the sender info and indicated the fold
Douglas Hinds wrote:
> A rule can be either:
> 1).- "active";
> 2).- "manual only";
> 3).- "active" AND "manual only"; or
> 4).- NEITHER "active" nor "manual only"
Yes.
> An "active" rule that is *not* "manual only", takes effect
> automatically; and
Yes, it works automatically on incoming
On Sunday, November 28, 1999, iszendro wrote:
> What I find is that using more than one filter to filter messages to
> the *same* folder doesn't work. Does it for you?
Yes, it works, if you mean having more than one filter for Incoming Mail
that filters different messages to the same folder. For
On Sunday, November 28, 1999, Ali Martin wrote:
> My interpretation is that the Incoming filter set is a list of
> filters that will work on all message types and on any folder, it
> would appear.
You are correct and I apologize for the misinformation. At one point,
back when I first got TB, the
(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
Hi tracer,
What I find is that using more than one filter to filter messages to
the *same* folder doesn't work. Does it for you?
Best regards
Istvan _Szendro
Using The Bat! 1.38 Beta/4
under Windows 98 4.10
--
--
View the T
Hi there!
On 28 Nov 99, at 8:38, Marck D. Pearlstone wrote
about "Re[2]: nws attachments":
> >> AVK> MIME-attach an example of such message, and let's see:-))
>
> AVK> And what? The message was pretty well opened here with beta 2. No
> AVK> problem at all other then the (naturally) the stup
Hi there!
On 27 Nov 99, at 15:04, Paula Ford wrote
about "Re: Activating only certain filters":
> > 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
Ali Martin wrote:
> If I run the incoming filter set on my inbox for unread messages,
> nothing happens. Now, if I run my Incoming filter set on my inbox
> selecting read and replied messages in the 'Refilter Mail ...' popup
> dialog box, all of the senders messages, which are either read or
>
Januk Aggarwal wrote:
> 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 filter
On 28 November 1999 at 01:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] told the list:
>> >> Apparently these are AOL inline attachments; at least TB says
>> they >> are inline attachments. Is there no way The Bat! can read
>> these?
>>
>> AVK> MIME-attach an example of such message, and let's see:-))
AVK> And wh
21 matches
Mail list logo
