Read filters

I'm starting to use the read-filters and noticed that the ctrl-M shortcut doesn't trigger them (I have to open the msg in a new window to execute the filter). I think I'll add it to the bugtrack site, but before I'd like to know if I'm the only one seeing this. Maybe i

Re: Sorting Office/Filters

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, December 30, 2002 Raf Hofmans stated: RH> Hello, RH> I've just switched to 'The Bat!', and am still exploring all the RH> functions and features of this program. Welcome aboard RH> Is it possible to apply a newly created 'Sorting Rule' t

Re: Sorting Office/Filters

> Is it possible to apply a newly created 'Sorting Rule' to the messages > that are *currently* in the Inbox? This is possible in Outlook Expr, > but I can't find a similar function in 'The Bat!'. Can someone help me > out? Folder -> Re-filter - Click for "Incoming Mail". / St __

Re: Sorting Office/Filters

lter, use View menu -> "Re-filter" command. (It will run all defined filters, or classes of filters, though. I'm not sure if it's possible to run just one filter selectively.) .marek jedlinski -- No ads, no nags freeware: http://keynote.prv.pl (KeyNote, PhoneDeck, Kook

Sorting Office/Filters

Hello, I've just switched to 'The Bat!', and am still exploring all the functions and features of this program. I have a simple question about the 'Sorting Office' (Account > Sorting Office/Filters): Is it possible to apply a newly created 'Sorting Rule' t

Re: How to browse in 200 filters?

Hallo Henk, On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 16:59:26 +0100GMT (25-12-02, 16:59 +0100GMT, where I live), you wrote: HvE> I have over 200 filters in The Bat. I'm trying to find a quick way to HvE> navigate through all the filters. Any suggestions? Best way is to give them meaningful names. Also i

How to browse in 200 filters?

Dear all, I have over 200 filters in The Bat. I'm trying to find a quick way to navigate through all the filters. Any suggestions? -- Henkmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL&qu

Re: Bayesian Filters

Hello Ron, > I was talking with a friend about Bayesian mail filters, which apparently learn > to sort one's mail by being given examples. Is anyone using such a filter with > TheBat!? Any advice will be appreciated. See a thread with Subject: "[SOT] The best filter for SPAM

Re: Bayesian Filters

Ron, On 16-12-2002 13:08, you [R] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: R> I was talking with a friend about Bayesian mail filters, which R> apparently learn to sort one's mail by being given examples. Is R> anyone using such a filter with TheBat!? Any a

Bayesian Filters

Hi all, I was talking with a friend about Bayesian mail filters, which apparently learn to sort one's mail by being given examples. Is anyone using such a filter with TheBat!? Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks, Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com He who will not apply new remedies

Re[2]: Filters for both in and out boxes

In reply to Thomas's message 'Filters for both in and out boxes' on Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:53:38 +0700 from [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thomas, TF> I therefore suggested repeatedly that these filter functions TF> (incoming, outgoing, read, replied) should not be seperat

Re: Filters for both in and out boxes

nce for sender. Actually, I always use "Presence in Kludges" in order to cover both recipient and sender. What I still have to do is create two filters, one for incoming and one for outgoing mail. I therefore suggested repeatedly that these filter functions (incoming, outgoing, read, replied)

Filters for both in and out boxes

Maybe others have mentioned this idea: let the same filter apply to both Inbox and Outbox so that I don't have to keep defining the same filter twice, once for recipient and once for sender. Ideally, filters should not be associated with Inbox, Outbox, Sent Mail, or any other default f

Re[2]: Recovering deleted filters

me, you said: CT>> Is there anyway to recover the deleted set? (I had about 40+ spam CT>> filters in there and I don't really want to recreate them from scratch.) > Did you back up your TB! message base folder by any chance? That'll be your >

Re: Recovering deleted filters

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 'Lo Carter, On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:56:28 -0800 your time, you said: CT> Is there anyway to recover the deleted set? (I had about 40+ spam CT> filters in there and I don't really want to recreate them from scratch.) Did you

Re: Recovering deleted filters

Hello Carter Thomas, On or about Wednesday, November 27, 2002 at 07:56:28GMT -0800 (which was 10:56 AM in the tropics where I live) Carter Thomas wrote; CT> I accidently deleted a set of office filters for sorting incoming CT> mail. (I thought I was deleting just one rule but ended up de

Recovering deleted filters

HI! tbudl: I accidently deleted a set of office filters for sorting incoming mail. (I thought I was deleting just one rule but ended up deleting the entire set.) Is there anyway to recover the deleted set? (I had about 40+ spam filters in there and I don't really want to recreate them

Re:Wild Cards in filters (was: no subject))

Hello Mike, On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:38:03 -0700 GMT (10/11/02, 23:38 +0700 GMT), Mike wrote: > Can anyone imagine whether the fields in the filter add section > accept wild cards? You can use wild cards if you enable Regular Expressions in the Advanced tab of the sorting Office. > IN addition t

Re: Filters.

Hello Chris, Friday, October 25, 2002, 2:50:47 PM, you wrote: CW> I've set up a nice little hot-key through PowerPro to execute what I CW> require. It goes through the menus and selects the read filters aswell Oh, did you? That would sound a little tricky. And you would presume

Re: Filters.

Hi Adam, On Friday, October 25, 2002 14:26 your local time, which was 09:56 my local time, Adam Adam [A] wrote; CW>> It's working fine now! Just need to work on the delete filter which CW>> should be childs play and also, how a quick key can run all the CW>> filters for me

Re: Filters.

filter which CW> should be childs play and also, how a quick key can run all the filters CW> for me (Re-Filter Folder). View/Edit Shortcuts/Folder and click on Re-filter. CW> Saves going through the menus and selecting CW> the 'Read' filter aswell. I don't know how t

Re: Filters.

Hello Chris, On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 at 08:56:56 [GMT -0700], you wrote: CW> I hope that makes sense to everyone and that it's possible and CW> someone can help me complete this mission :-) I read the entire thread, but just picked this one to reply to. Have you read: http://www.pcwize.com/thebat/fi

Re: Filters.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In <mid:13820928243.20021024161326@;Surfcity.net>, Chris Weaven [CW] wrote:' CW> It's working fine now! Just need to work on the delete filter CW> which should be childs play and also, how a quick key can run CW> all the

Re: Filters.

e 'read' filter, but as mentioned, even when CW>> deleting, it would still filter to the family folder. I've now CW>> set this filter to manual and try to run it, but it does nothing CW>> :-( I've a few others that were working as automatic, but now CW>> manual,

Re: Filters.

the 'read' filter, but as mentioned, even when CW> deleting, it would still filter to the family folder. I've now CW> set this filter to manual and try to run it, but it does nothing CW> :-( I've a few others that were working as automatic, but now CW> manual, don&#x

Re: Filters.

Hi Allie, On Thursday, October 24, 2002 17:38 your local time, which was 15:38 my local time, Allie Martin wrote; CW>> I've added a host of names into the alternative and when i manually CW>> run the filter, nothing happens? > We need to know more on what you're trying to do and what you've > do

Re: Filters.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In <mid:13314440474.20021024142518@;Surfcity.net>, Chris Weaven [CW] wrote:' CW> Okay, what's the difference between adding addresses in the CW> bottom of the 'Rule' tab in filters These are 'and' stri

Re[2]: Filters.

difference between adding addresses in the bottom of CW> the 'Rule' tab in filters compared to adding addresses in CW> 'Alternatives'? My understanding of this is adding under filter sets under the rules tab treats them as boolean 'AND' where the alternatives t

Re: Filters.

Hi, On Thursday, October 24, 2002 14:25 our local time, Chris Weaven [CW] wrote; CW> I've added a host of names into the alternative and when i manually CW> run the filter, nothing happens? Forgot to add, these filters were working when set to automatic. Chris. -- E-Mail - [EMAI

Re: Filters.

Hi Patrick, On Thursday, October 24, 2002 16:49 your local time, which was 13:49 my local time, Patrick G. [PG] wrote; CW>> How do I trigger a bunch of filters together rather than running 1 at a CW>> time? PG> You can do this on a per folder basis by right clicking the folde

Re[2]: Filters.

Hello Chris, On Thursday, October 24, 2002, 3:52:32 PM, you wrote: CW> I've got a few in there that I've now turned to manual. CW> How do I trigger a bunch of filters together rather than running 1 at a CW> time? I think this is what you are looking for: You can do t

Filters.

eleted 5. Read messages are to be filtered to their respective folders 6. All this to be run manually from one hot-key I can work on the individual mail filters to each folder, but want to know how to trigger a selection of filters together. Any mails regarding TBOT, TBUDL and TBTECH will automatica

Re: Filters.

ilter will, by definition, not filter out unread mail. Just be sure that you also set your account options not to mark a message as read when it is still in the preview pane. FWIW, people's preferences are different, but I don't really think that the setup you described is the most e

Re: Filters.

ion, not filter out unread mail. How is this done? JN> Instead of manual filters, consider making more extensive use of JN> "read" filters. Instead of flagging messages that you want to JN> delete and then filtering around them and then deleting them, just JN> delete them aft

Re: Filters.

Good evening Chris, It was foretold that on 24-10-2002 @ 10:49:39 GMT-0700 (which was 19:49:39 where I live) Chris Weaven would mumble: JN>> The read/unread switch will not be there, because you address that JN>> in the type of filter you use. For example, a "read" filter will, JN>> by def

Re: Filters.

office. You'll see a folder called "Read". Click on L> the folder and add your filter. You now created a "read" filter. I've got a few in there that I've now turned to manual. How do I trigger a bunch of filters together rather than running 1 at a time?

Re: Filters.

Good evening Chris, It was foretold that on 24-10-2002 @ 12:52:32 GMT-0700 (which was 21:52:32 where I live) Chris Weaven would mumble: CW> How do I trigger a bunch of filters together rather than running 1 at a CW> time? Can't help you out on that because i only use

Re[2]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

G> In the context of Alists message where you might be the recipient of LG> maybe 20 to 30 filters, that's a lot of geek read to decide if it's a LG> filter you want to "install". Yes, imagine a filter trojan that just deletes your email for you, all because you i

Re: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

uge value added in being able to "export" in some fashion some or even all the filters in an account which could be e-mailed or such to another machine. I would just prefer to have some level of interactivity in determining which of the (such as in my case 50+ filters) to "import".

Re: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hello Scott, On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 at 13:16:09 [GMT -0500], you wrote: SM> What's wrong with doing it the way you do it now, mark, copy, SM> paste it to the filter list. I mean, how often do you change your SM> filters? It's not like you do it every day or whatever. In the co

Re: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

t; fitlering TF> system on all of these machines. awc> i would like them to have the same filters on all machines.. awc> she's trying TB now.. ^ Multiple personality? awc> just an idea.. that obviously needs more thought... when I try to awc> tell people abou

Re[9]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Sunday, October 13, 2002, 1:09:28 PM, you wrote: DC>> I created a separate address book, called killfile, and discard all DC>> mail from anyone that is KNOWN in that address book. awc> what i've found is that the messages are from tons of different awc> sources.. often the same message.. so for

Re[11]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hi, Laura! Sunday, October 13, 2002, 3:36:28 PM, you wrote: awc> I get 150 or so per day that are junk! often more... Well, I'm not up to that point. Yet. :) -- --Scott. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! 1.61 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 on an AMD Athlon XP 1900 (1.6G real, 1.9

Re[10]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hello Scott, Sunday, October 13, 2002, 1:28:05 PM, you wrote: Unless you have SM> more than several dozen spams coming in daily, I'd say that that's SM> probably adequate. I get 150 or so per day that are junk! often more... which is why I need to get some easy way to handle it! thanks!

Re[9]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hi, Laura! Sunday, October 13, 2002, 3:09:28 PM, you wrote: DC>> I created a separate address book, called killfile, and discard all mail DC>> from anyone that is KNOWN in that address book. awc> what i've found is that the messages are from tons of different awc> sources.. often the same mess

Re[8]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hello Dave, Sunday, October 13, 2002, 1:04:19 PM, you wrote: DC> You can use the same idea for creating a blacklist. DC> I created a separate address book, called killfile, and discard all mail DC> from anyone that is KNOWN in that address book. what i've found is that the messages are from to

Re[7]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Scott, Sunday, October 13, 2002, 12:27:40 PM, you wrote: SM> You should have a $KNOWN$ filter in your list of filters; it catches SM> emails that are from email addresses that are in your address book. SM> That's an example of a whitelist; it identifies emails that you want,

Re[7]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hello Scott, Sunday, October 13, 2002, 12:27:40 PM, you wrote: SM> You should have a $KNOWN$ filter in your list of filters; it catches SM> emails that are from email addresses that are in your address book. SM> That's an example of a whitelist; it identifies emails that you

Re[6]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

awc> want it in my junk folder..plus i have a awc> lot of distribution lists.. and other net business.. i just added awc> 2 filters today for mailings i want to sort into different awc> folders. i wish i had the option to bounce awc> it! that would be cool!! You should have a $KN

Re: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hi Scott, On Sunday, October 13, 2002, 1:52 PM, you put forth, in part, about "Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters across computers": awc>> as new junk mail comes in i'm always adding filters S> Every day? S> Mostly I add whitelist fil

Re[5]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hello Scott, Sunday, October 13, 2002, 11:52:27 AM, you wrote: SM> Mostly I add whitelist filters maybe one a week, and even then, with SM> the $KNOWN$ filter, that catches most of everything already. Most of SM> my new filters are for ill-behaved non-standard lists. i don'

Re[2]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

be able to easily share my filters. plus some are pretty TF> awc> complicated to set up... and maintain..but if you're on 2 TF> awc> machines pretty regulary (like one client I'm trying to get off TF> awc> OE and onto TB!)... it would really simplify things.. TF>

Re[2]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hi, Allie! Sunday, October 13, 2002, 1:49:27 PM, you wrote: ACM> I'd be happy with the current method if I could select and copy more ACM> than a single filter at a time. Currently, I have to copy and paste Oh, I'm not arguaing about that. I'm surprised that that ability wasn't added long ago

Re: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hello alists, On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 11:40:05 -0700 GMT (14/10/02, 01:40 +0700 GMT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: awc> [...] .. i'd like to have TB! installed on all the machines, and awc> be able to easily share my filters. plus some are pretty awc> complicated to set up... and ma

Re[4]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hi, alists! Sunday, October 13, 2002, 1:37:33 PM, you wrote: awc> as new junk mail comes in i'm always adding filters Every day? Mostly I add whitelist filters maybe one a week, and even then, with the $KNOWN$ filter, that catches most of everything already. Most o

Re: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott Mcnay [SM] wrote:' SM> What's wrong with doing it the way you do it now, mark, copy, SM> paste it to the filter list. I mean, how often do you change SM> your

Re[2]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hello Leif, Sunday, October 13, 2002, 9:35:32 AM, you wrote: LG> Don't know about that part. I'd hate to get an e-mail from a LG> spammer that modifies my filters to allow his SPAM to get LG> through. Maybe a parser that would pop up a dialog box so LG> that you can put a

Re[3]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hello Scott, Sunday, October 13, 2002, 11:16:09 AM, you wrote: SM> What's wrong with doing it the way you do it now, mark, copy, paste it SM> to the filter list. I mean, how often do you change your filters? It's SM> not like you do it every day or whatever. as new jun

Re[2]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hi, Leif! Sunday, October 13, 2002, 11:35:32 AM, you wrote: awc>> when TB receives it, it would automatically cause the new filter awc>> be loaded to the receiving machine. LG> Don't know about that part. I'd hate to get an e-mail from a spammer LG> that modifies

Re: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

Hello alists, On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 at 06:47:55 [GMT -0700], you wrote: awc> when TB receives it, it would automatically cause the new filter awc> be loaded to the receiving machine. Don't know about that part. I'd hate to get an e-mail from a spammer that modifies my filters t

Re[2]: Setting Global Account Settings & sharing filters acrosscomputers

by checking a checkbox that says to LG> inherit settings or something. It could even be a menued virtual LG> account so that the master account doesn't even have to show up in the LG> accounts list. This will tie in the filters, templates, message list LG> column views etc. Oh, h

Re[2]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Thomas, On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 at 23:05:44[GMT +0700](which was 17:05 where I live) you wrote: TF> If you are talking about addressbook groups, I suspect you may have TF> your own address in that group too. So when you send a message to the TF> whole group, you'll get it as an incoming mail, o

Re: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Richard, On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:11:04 +0100 GMT (10/10/02, 16:11 +0700 GMT), Richard Wakeford wrote: SM>> If it's not a mailing list, then it doesn't really make sense, SM>> unless you have (had) some kind of configuration problem where SM>> TB! thought that the inbox folder was the Sent M

Re[6]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Scott, On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 at21:53:39[GMT -0500](which was 03:53 where I live) you wrote: MW>>> Are you saying you want *another* copy sent to you? RW>> Well some of my mail (most if it actually) comes to the inbox anyway RW>> so why doesn't it all so that it can all automatically get thre

Re[4]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Scott, On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 at22:53:39[GMT -0500](which was 04:53 where I live) you wrote: SM> If it's not a mailing list, then it doesn't really make sense, unless SM> you have (had) some kind of configuration problem where TB! thought that the SM> inbox folder was the Sent Mail folder.

Re[3]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hi, Richard! Wednesday, October 9, 2002, 1:28:02 AM, you wrote: RW> Hello Thomas, RW> Ah, all my questions being gradually answered apart from why messages RW> originally went to the inbox without a CC and now don't but I will RW> amend my rules so that outgoing messages go straight to the rele

Re[2]: Filters are sooooo complicated

way I've already planned to do it. G> G> When I am working with filters I usually also set a colour in the same G> filter together with the action I am trying to create. This makes it G> easy to check wether a certain filter was triggered and used ;-) G> Another good

Re[3]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello myob, On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 at14:54:54[GMT +0100](which was 14:54 where I live) you wrote: MO>> Could it be your ISP automatically adding a BCC to you on every mail you MO>> send? Ask them! m> IIRC, Richard, that's what CIX/Ameol does. Yes it does but I was still getting mail in my TB inbox

Re[4]: Export filters?

On Wednesday, October 09, 2002, Joseph N. wrote: -Original Message- JN>On Wednesday, October 09, 2002, syv wrote in JN> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: s>> The purpose is to move some of the filters to the mail s>> server JN> syv, J

Re: Export filters?

Hello syv, Wednesday, October 9, 2002, 2:14:59 PM, you wrote: s> On Wednesday, October 09, 2002, Joseph N. wrote: s> The purpose is to move some of the filters to the mail s> server [mostly to filter spam] and to make sure I do not s> miss some. Hard to imagine a mail server run

Re[3]: Export filters?

On Wednesday, October 09, 2002, syv wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: s> The purpose is to move some of the filters to the mail s> server syv, Well, not sure what type of mail server you have, but the syntax for the filters is very probably different.

Re[2]: Export filters?

On Wednesday, October 09, 2002, Joseph N. wrote: The purpose is to move some of the filters to the mail server [mostly to filter spam] and to make sure I do not miss some. -Original Message- JN>On Wednesday, October 09, 2002, syv wrote in JN> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid

Re: Export filters?

ON Wednesday, October 9, 2002, 4:42:22 PM, you wrote: s> Is there a way to export the filters? Hi syv, You can copy (ctrl-c) and Paste (Ctr-V) them. -- Best regards, Gerard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The sex was so good that even the neighb

Re: Export filters?

Hallo syv, On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 07:42:22 -0700GMT (9-10-02, 16:42 +0200GMT, where I live), you wrote: s> Is there a way to export the filters? Only the manual way: Ctrl-C Ctrl-V into a text-file and to copy the whole sorting office, the account.srx file. -- Groetjes, Roe

Re: Export filters?

On Wednesday, October 09, 2002, syv wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: s> Is there a way to export the filters? syv, I'm not sure what is your ultimate intended use, so there may be other ways to accomplish your objectives, but each filter can be

Export filters?

Hi, Is there a way to export the filters? Thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Wednesday, October 9, 2002, 8:22:54 AM, you wrote: MO> On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, 08:25, Richard Wakeford wrote: >> Until yesterday all my sent mail came back to the Inbox without a CC >> or rule. MO> Could it be your ISP automatically adding a BCC to you on every mail you MO> send? Ask th

Re: Filters are sooooo complicated

to place the msg directly into the appropriate folder. When I am working with filters I usually also set a colour in the same filter together with the action I am trying to create. This makes it easy to check wether a certain filter was triggered and used ;-) RW> I think I'm slowly gett

Re: Filters are sooooo complicated

On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, 08:25, Richard Wakeford wrote: > Until yesterday all my sent mail came back to the Inbox without a CC > or rule. Could it be your ISP automatically adding a BCC to you on every mail you send? Ask them! -- Regards, Marcus Ohlström Using The Bat! v1.60q on Windo

Re[2]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Thomas, On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 at11:31:35[GMT +0700](which was 05:31 where I live) you wrote: RW>> Even more baffled. So, if I send a mail to someone who is not in my RW>> address book or on a mailing list, I have to CC it to myself to get a RW>> copy? TF> It has nothing to do with your addre

Re[6]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Scott, On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 at21:53:39[GMT -0500](which was 03:53 where I live) you wrote: SM> I suspect that you're confusing messages for a mailing list and normal SM> non-list messages. SM> When you send a normal (non-list) message, TB sends the email, then SM> plops it into the

Re[6]: Filters are sooooo complicated

can all automatically get threaded? MW> If your outgoing mail ends up in your inbox without your doing MW> anything then it sounds like you have a misbehaving outbound filter. That's because, up until now, I didn't have any outbound filters because I thought all messages (sent

Re[2]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Marck, On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 at02:37:59[GMT +0100](which was 02:37 where I live) you wrote: MW>>> Are you saying you want *another* copy sent to you? RW>> Well some of my mail (most if it actually) comes to the inbox RW>> anyway so why doesn't it all so that it can all automatically RW>> ge

Re: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Richard, On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 21:44:11 +0100 GMT (09/10/02, 03:44 +0700 GMT), Richard Wakeford wrote: TF>> No, I mean a mail that I sent just to a recipient, not to a list. For TF>> example if I send a message directly to your address. It will not come TF>> back to me, unless I include my ow

Re[5]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hi, Richard! Tuesday, October 8, 2002, 4:54:08 PM, you wrote: MW>> The messages you send out end up in your Sent Mail folder. RW> That doesn't mean they reach their destination though. I've had 3 RW> messages in the last 24 hours that have just disappeared even though RW> they are shown as sent

Re[5]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Richard- Tuesday, October 8, 2002, 2:54:08 PM, you wrote: MW>> Are you saying you want *another* copy sent to you? RW> Well some of my mail (most if it actually) comes to the inbox anyway RW> so why doesn't it all so that it can all automatically get threaded? If your outgoing mail ends up in

Re: Filters are sooooo complicated

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Richard, @8-Oct-2002, 22:54 Richard Wakeford [RW] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: MW>> Are you saying you want *another* copy sent to you? RW> Well some of my mail (most if it actually) comes to the inbox RW> anyway so why doe

Re[4]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Mark, On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 at14:28:11[GMT -0700](which was 22:28 where I live) you wrote: MW> I got lost somewhere in the circular logic here, but... You're lost!! :-) MW> The messages you send out end up in your Sent Mail folder. That doesn't mean they reach their destination though. I've

Re[3]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Richard- I got lost somewhere in the circular logic here, but... The messages you send out end up in your Sent Mail folder. Are you saying you want *another* copy sent to you? If so, then, yes, you need to CC or BCC yourself. If you're just wanting confirmation that the message you sent got to t

Re[2]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Thomas, On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 at22:40:47[GMT +0700](which was 16:40 where I live) you wrote: TF> No, I mean a mail that I sent just to a recipient, not to a list. For TF> example if I send a message directly to your address. It will not come TF> back to me, unless I include my own address as

Re: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Richard, On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:07:05 +0100 GMT (08/10/02, 14:07 +0700 GMT), Richard Wakeford wrote: RW> Oh, I thought *all* mail comes back to me, at least mine does (I RW> think). Do you mean by "normal" mail that is not in the address RW> book? No, I mean a mail that I sent just to a re

Re[5]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hi, Richard! Tuesday, October 8, 2002, 2:12:30 AM, you wrote: RW> It's not that I'm having trouble with it because I don't think, in my RW> situation, I shall ever need such complicated rules. I just wish that RW> the more simple rules could be explained to remove any un clearness or RW> ambigu

Re[4]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Scott, On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 at21:29:53[GMT -0500](which was 03:29 where I live) you wrote: RW>> Yes I have but it's all far too complicated and for me and leaves me RW>> half way down page one! SM> What are you still having trouble with? I'm trying to figure out SM> regular expressio

Re[2]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Thomas, On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 at11:43:36[GMT +0700](which was 05:43 where I live) you wrote: TF> I filter mailing lists only at incoming time. Outgoing filters are TF> important for "normal" mail, where your sent message doesn't come back TF> to you. Oh, I thought

Re: Filters are sooooo complicated

dresses (if there is no typo) may appear twice in your addressbook. TF>> Your replies to the list will come in through the list anyway, and TF>> will be caught by the filter on the list. RW> Ok so, unless there are are reasons for complicated rules, I can RW> keep all my rules

Re[3]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hi, Richard! Monday, October 7, 2002, 9:14:28 PM, you wrote: LG>> Just wanted to check. Have you read: LG>> RW> Yes I have but it's all far too complicated and for me and leaves me RW> half way down page one! What are you still having trouble

Re[2]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Leif, On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 at20:00:27[GMT -0600](which was 03:00 where I live) you wrote: LG> Just wanted to check. Have you read: LG> Yes I have but it's all far too complicated and for me and leaves me half way down page one! -- Best rega

Re: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Richard, On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 at 16:46:12 [GMT +0100], you wrote: RW> After reading all the FAQ and help files Just wanted to check. Have you read: Cheers, Leif Gregory -- List Moderator (and fellow registered end-user) PCWize Editor

Re[2]: Filters are sooooo complicated

e involved. No, it was the AND rule in the first filter string. I've now made an alternative and it's OK. TF> Once you have understood the logic behind the filters, you will decide TF> this by yourself. One more tip: The filters are applied from top to TF> bottom. So if two filte

Re[2]: Filters are sooooo complicated

Hello Gerard, On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 at19:14:54[GMT +0200](which was 18:14 where I live) you wrote: G> - You need to determine a UNIQUE filtering characteristic that does not G> change over time. G> The simplest being the email address a person. I thought I had but I've been told one answer, the fi

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >