-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Wed, 27 Oct 2004,
@ @ at 02:33:58 +0100, when MFPA wrote:
Hi
On Tuesday, 26 October, 2004, at 3:13:52 PM, Michael Geyer wrote:
That's one of the effects of a missing cancel
Hello Mica,
If there is an interest to know this, an esoteric move (in both FS)
replacing the function of the missing cancel button is pushing ESC
button.
ESC does _not_ cancel every addition, deletion or change done since
opening the Sorting Office. Not at all.
--
Best regards,
Miguel A.
Hello Miguel!
On Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 8:51 AM, you wrote:
MM ... replacing the function of the missing cancel button is
MM pushing ESC button.
M ESC does _not_ cancel every addition, deletion or change done since
M opening the Sorting Office. Not at all.
I have just put a note to the
Hello Mary,
Please support? With a note of your own?
I am sure Rit guys are well aware of this need, what probably happens is
that it may not be as easy to implement as we may think. See my Oct.
16th mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on TBBeta.
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Hello Allie,
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:02:48 -0500 GMT (26/10/2004, 20:02 +0700 GMT),
Allie Martin wrote:
FWIW, I reviewed all my filters and found I had a filter named New
Rule that had no conditions and no actions. I have since deleted
it, so maybe that was the source of the problem.
AM I'm
Hello Miguel!
On Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 10:04 AM, you wrote:
MB Please support? With a note of your own?
M I am sure Rit guys are well aware of this need, what probably
M happens is that it may not be as easy to implement as we may think.
M See my Oct. 16th mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on
M
Hello Mary,
Okay. I get your point. Sending a cup of coffee your way, as I slept
late and the fresh pot is still hot, here. :)
Delicious coffee, as usual :)
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Wed, 27 Oct 2004,
@ @ at 15:51:59 +0200, when MAU wrote:
Hello Mica,
If there is an interest to know this, an esoteric move (in both FS)
replacing the function of the missing
Hi Folks,
the filter does
NOT move the message as it is intended to.
Can any of you offer a suggestion as to why this filter doesn't work?
'Cos no one seemed to have noticed when TB was beta tested! Or no one
chose to do anything about it after beta test.
Join the 'my filters don't
Hello Perry,
Can any of you offer a suggestion as to why this filter doesn't work?
I'm not sure if this may be the problem but why don't you try changing:
Sender contains [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to
Header_field From: contains [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial -
Hi MAU,
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 5:14:08 AM, you wrote:
M I'm not sure if this may be the problem but why don't you try changing:
M Sender contains [EMAIL PROTECTED]
M to
M Header_field From: contains [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Done. However, the outcome is the same. The dialog reports that it
Hi admin,
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 4:43:37 AM, you wrote:
aacu Join the 'my filters don't work' club!
... like the man who had been tarred and feathered and run out of
town on a rail. When asked how he was feeling, the victim said that if
it weren't for the honor of the thing, he would
On Mon 25-Oct-04 10:01pm -0400, Perry Nelson wrote:
Can any of you offer a suggestion as to why this filter doesn't work?
Can't confirm. I copied and pasted your filter and
only changed the target folder to one of my subfolders.
Next, I sent myself a message from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] The test
ON Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 12:34:35 PM, you wrote:
PN Done. However, the outcome is the same. The dialog reports that it
PN was filtered, but the message isn't moved.
Hi Perry,
Could you try adding to the filter the set flag action or something
similar. You should have both the Move to
Hi Gerard,
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 7:14:49 AM, you wrote:
G Could you try adding to the filter the set flag action or something
G similar. You should have both the Move to folder as the set flag
G action.
An excellent idea!! I'm so enthusiastic because I had thought of it
too
Hi Bill,
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 7:12:56 AM, you wrote:
BM Can't confirm. I copied and pasted your filter and only changed the
BM target folder to one of my subfolders. Next, I sent myself a message
BM from [EMAIL PROTECTED] The test mail was moved properly to my
BM target folder.
Thanks
Hi Perry and list,
On Tuesday, October 26, 2004 at 07:55:03 GMT -0400 (which was 13:55
where I live) Perry Nelson wrote (at least in parts) and made these
valuable points on the subject of New filter does not move message:
[Test filters]
It says, Processed by: New Rule. Actions performed
Hi Michael,
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 8:08:51 AM, you wrote:
MG Action performed: without any more indicator means there is no
MG action associated to this filter. May be that filter is a remaining
MG result of some experimenting.
Thanks for your input.
As I read the flow chart view of
On Tuesday, October 26, 2004 at 5:34:35 AM [GMT -0500], Perry Nelson
wrote:
Done. However, the outcome is the same. The dialog reports that it
was filtered, but the message isn't moved.
.. but filtered by what?
Are you sure it's being filtered by the correct filter and that
another filter
Hi Allie,
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 8:26:23 AM, you wrote:
AM I'd try putting the problem filter at the top of the filter list and
AM try again.
Eureka!
That did it. The message is now moved.
However, that poses a question. Must all new filters be moved to the
top of the list?
On Tuesday, October 26, 2004 at 7:39:25 AM [GMT -0500], Perry Nelson
wrote:
Eureka! That did it. The message is now moved.
:) Ok. I'm not surprised since the filter was so simple and really
aught to work, provided the intended message actually gets to the
filter.
However, that poses a
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 5:34:35 AM, (Internet Time - @482) you wrote:
Hello Perry,
PN Done. However, the outcome is the same. The dialog reports that it
PN was filtered, but the message isn't moved.
PN Thanks for your suggestion. Here's the way the filter looks now.
PN TB!
Hi Perry and list,
On Tuesday, October 26, 2004 at 08:28:17 GMT -0400 (which was 14:28
where I live) Perry Nelson wrote (at least in parts) and made these
valuable points on the subject of New filter does not move message:
Thanks for your input.
You're welcome :-)
As I read the flow
ON Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 1:43:57 PM, you wrote:
PN Hi Gerard,
PN Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 7:14:49 AM, you wrote:
G Could you try adding to the filter the set flag action or something
G similar. You should have both the Move to folder as the set flag
G action.
PN An excellent idea!!
Hi Michael,
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 9:15:20 AM, you wrote:
MG My guess is: there is a filter New rule which prevents the
MG Yahoo filter from catching your message.
Right you are, Michael! I'm sure you've seen by now that I discovered
that rule and have since deleted it ... and now my
Hi Allie,
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 9:02:48 AM, you wrote:
AM So your new filter doesn't have to be at the top of the list if you
AM know that the messages it's supposed to filter will not be caught by
AM another filter.
I'm convinced my problem was caused by the New Rule filter mentioned
Hi Gerard,
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 9:27:46 AM, you wrote:
G At least we all learned something ;-)
Indeed. One of my favorite taglines is the best thing about a
mistake is the joy it brings to others.
--
Regards,
Perry
Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service
Hi Perry and list,
On Tuesday, October 26, 2004 at 09:35:39 GMT -0400 (which was 15:35
where I live) Perry Nelson wrote (at least in parts) and made these
valuable points on the subject of New filter does not move message:
Right you are, Michael! I'm sure you've seen by now that I discovered
On Tue 26-Oct-04 6:55am -0400, Perry Nelson wrote:
It says, Processed by: New Rule. Actions performed:
What does that tell us? Does the fact that nothing
follows the Actions performed: portion indicate
that no actions were performed, which is consistent
with what I am seeing? If you perform
Hi Bill,
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 12:04:06 PM, you wrote:
BM What that tells us is that your filter is not being triggered at
BM all. Instead, another filter called New Rule is being triggered -
BM which performs no action - and no additional filters are being
BM triggered.
This process has
On Tue 26-Oct-04 11:13am -0400, Perry Nelson wrote:
As I'm sure you have already seen, I did discover the
New Role filter and deleted it. Once that was done,
my filter (and a couple of others) performed as
expected.
I have now read the thread and am confused by your
comment in mid:[EMAIL
Hi Bill,
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 12:50:27 PM, you wrote:
BM I have now read the thread and am confused by your comment in
BM mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
PN I have checked continue processing despite the fact that this
PN filter is the last in my list of filters. I don't have any common
PN
On Tue 26-Oct-04 3:42pm -0400, Perry Nelson wrote:
Does that clear up the sequence?
Yes :-) I'm glad your filters are now working as
expected.
--
Best regards,
Bill
The Bat! 3.0.1.33 Pro - BayesIt! 0.7.3 - XP Pro SP2 - POP3
Current version
Hi
On Tuesday, 26 October, 2004, at 3:13:52 PM, Michael Geyer wrote:
That's one of the effects of a missing cancel button in NFS - if I'm
allowed to throw in this thought :-)
I have never been able to find a cancel button in OLD filter
system.
--
Best regards,
MFPA
Hi Folks,
Over the weekend I upgraded my system to the latest version of The
Bat!
Tonight I created a new filter, that I've copied and pasted below,
with the simple intent to move such messages in the future to a folder
under one of my accounts. However, when I refilter the Inbox, the
35 matches
Mail list logo
