Hæ!
Saturday, December 4, 2004, 15:22, Roelof Otten wrote:
Only when the target account has no filters yet. In that case you
could copy the account.srb file.
Thanks Roelof, this worked like a charm. Makes life easier... :)
--
Kveðja, Thorvald Neumann | http://www.aesir.de/
| The Bat!
Hello all,
I am still having problems filtering the K9-identified spam to the
spam folder and have tried everything I (and you) could think of.
But I noticed a symbol beside the K9 filter in the tree view of the
sorting office:
http://www.tangleworld.com/screenshot2.jpg
...it looks like
Hi P.Johnson,
on Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:15:35 -0600GMT, you wrote:
PJ I am still having problems filtering the K9-identified spam to the
PJ spam folder and have tried everything I (and you) could think of.
PJ But I noticed a symbol beside the K9 filter in the tree view of the
PJ sorting office:
PJ
Hi Peter,
On Thursday, December 2, 2004, 2:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PJ But I noticed a symbol beside the K9 filter in the tree view of the
PJ sorting office:
PJ http://www.tangleworld.com/screenshot2.jpg
...
PM I'd describe it as a hand too, indeed. I don't see this here on Win2K,
PM
Hi P.Johnson,
On Thursday, December 2, 2004 11:15 your local time, which was 17:15 my
local time, P.Johnson [PJ] wrote;
PJ ...it looks like a little hand to me. Can anyone tell me what it
PJ signifies, and whether it might be the problem with the filter?
The green hand signifies that the filter
Hi Chris,
On Thursday, December 2, 2004 21:40 our local time, Chris Weaven [CW]
wrote;
CW The green hand signifies.
Sorry, I got the green from the active filter. The hand is white.
--
Regards,
Chris
Created using The Bat! v3.0.2.8
OS of Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
Cleaning
(and you) could think of.
PJ But I noticed a symbol beside the K9 filter in the tree view of the
PJ sorting office:
PJ http://www.tangleworld.com/screenshot2.jpg
PJ ...it looks like a little hand to me. Can anyone tell me what it
PJ signifies, and whether it might be the problem with the filter?
I
Chris and Stuart,
On Thursday, December 2, 2004, 6:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PJ ...it looks like a little hand to me. Can anyone tell me what it
PJ signifies, and whether it might be the problem with the filter?
CW... signifies that the filter is set for 'manual re-filtering
CW only' which
ASK Except for the nigeria connection scam mails of which I get at least two a
ASK day on three accounts ATM. K9 repeatedly misses those. *sigh*
RHS They usually get past k9 and BayesIt here also, but frankly I don't
RHS mind. Some of them are quite funny, and once in awhile I'll bite on
RHS one
Hello Mark,
On Monday, November 29, 2004, 9:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PJ The filter is as follows:
PJ TB! Message Filter
PJ beginFilter
PJ UID: [97E80840.01C492FE.7689AE34.682BBB08]
PJ Name: K9\20Anti-Spam
PJ Filter: {\0D\0A\20`7`X-Text-Classification`0`\20spam\0D\0A}
PJ
Hi Alexander,
On Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 10:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've set up K9 anti-spam and the TB filters to move spam to a junk
folder, but for some reason the filter isn't working. K9 allows you
to use the message header X-Text-Classification to identify spam
it's a K9 problem or a TB
problem, but suspect the latter.
Is it a common filter? Maybe you've just forgotten to share it with your
accounts.
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)
using TB! v3.0.2.8 on Windows XP Pro Service Pack 2
If God dropped acid, would He
and you are right, they snuck past K9.
However, if I simply send my bank account info I could be a
millionaire and hire someone to filter my email! :-)
ASK Is it a common filter? Maybe you've just forgotten to share it with your
ASK accounts.
I've set up two separate filters for the two accounts, using
Hæ!
My filter looks like this:
TB! Message Filter
beginFilter
UID: [564C1620.01C4B05E.1A441C3F.7FE14B3D]
Name: SPAM
Filter: {\0D\0A\20`5`0`X-Text-Classification:\20junk\0D\0A}
MoveMessage folder \5C\5C\5C$JUNK$
MarkRead
SetColour 226723330
IsActive
Ignore
IsSendQueue
endFilter
K9 learns and works very quickly
ASK Except for the nigeria connection scam mails of which I get at least two a
ASK day on three accounts ATM. K9 repeatedly misses those. *sigh*
They're troublesome for my filter, too. I figure it's because except
for spam words like Nigeria, Togo and Central
Hello Code 2 everyone else,
on 30-Nov-2004 at 19:06 you (Code 2) wrote:
ASK Except for the nigeria connection scam mails of which I get at least two a
ASK day on three accounts ATM. K9 repeatedly misses those. *sigh*
They're troublesome for my filter, too. I figure it's because except
Hello Thorvald Neumann everyone else,
on 30-Nov-2004 at 19:00 you (Thorvald Neumann) wrote:
Filter: {\0D\0A\20`5`0`X-Text-Classification:\20junk\0D\0A}
You altered the default header from spam to junk. Unless Pat did that,
it won't work for her. :-)
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http
ON Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 5:58:20 PM, you wrote:
ASK Except for the nigeria connection scam mails of which I get at least two a
ASK day on three accounts ATM. K9 repeatedly misses those. *sigh*
BayesFilter catches these for me nicely.
It is weak on other mails though :(
--
Best regards,
Hæ!
Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 19:24, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
You altered the default header from spam to junk. Unless Pat did that,
it won't work for her. :-)
Ah, yes. I thought my old PopFile-filters would work with K9 when I
just changed the header-addition. And guess what, the filters
ON Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 5:58:20 PM, you wrote:
ASK Except for the nigeria connection scam mails of which I get at least two a
ASK day on three accounts ATM. K9 repeatedly misses those. *sigh*
Hi Alexander,
I usually alert the company which email is being abused by sending a mail to
Hello Gerard everyone else,
on 30-Nov-2004 at 19:44 you (Gerard) wrote:
ASK Except for the nigeria connection scam mails of which I get at least two a
ASK day on three accounts ATM. K9 repeatedly misses those. *sigh*
BayesFilter catches these for me nicely.
It is weak on other mails though
ON Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 8:35:09 PM, you wrote:
ASK now it seems to me it is better to let the
ASK whitelisted mails not go to the database since the english language 419
ASK mails get thru, maybe there'se too little difference...
That is how I have set it up.
--
Best regards,
Gerard
Hello P.Johnson everyone else,
on 30-Nov-2004 at 18:51 you (P.Johnson) wrote:
ASK Is it a common filter? Maybe you've just forgotten to share it with your
ASK accounts.
I've set up two separate filters for the two accounts, using two slightly
different conditions. And, neither works
Hello Gerard,
On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 at 19:44:25 GMT +0100 (which was
19:44:25 where I live), Gerard wrote and made these valuable points on
the subject of K9 spam filter:
G ON Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 5:58:20 PM, you wrote:
ASK Except for the nigeria connection scam mails of which I
On Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 22:02:04, Dick H. wrote:
That's why I stopped using a Bayes based filter. The spammers are
getting very smart and know their ways to cheat these filters. I
installed a challenge/response based spam filter and not a single spam
mail got to my inbox since
Hello Jernej,
On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 at 22:18:06 GMT +0100 (which was
22:18:06 where I live), Jernej Simoncic wrote and made these valuable
points on the subject of K9 spam filter:
JS On Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 22:02:04, Dick H. wrote:
That's why I stopped using a Bayes based filter
,
and others also marked would not be moved by the filter.
ASK I've configured K9 to *not* add the spam percentage count to the header so
ASK that it'll simply contain spam.
ASK IIRC the default setting is to include that counter so the header is
ASK spam[89] or something. Maybe thats the problem
Hello Thorvald,
On Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 4:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TN My filter looks like this:
TN TB! Message Filter
TN beginFilter
TN UID: [564C1620.01C4B05E.1A441C3F.7FE14B3D]
TN Name: SPAM
TN Filter: {\0D\0A\20`5`0`X-Text-Classification:\20junk\0D\0A}
TN MoveMessage
Alexander,
Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 9:58:20 PM, you wrote:
ASK Except for the nigeria connection scam mails of which I get at least two a
ASK day on three accounts ATM. K9 repeatedly misses those. *sigh*
They usually get past k9 and BayesIt here also, but frankly I don't
mind. Some of them
Hello,
I've set up K9 anti-spam and the TB filters to move spam to a junk
folder, but for some reason the filter isn't working. K9 allows you to
use the message header X-Text-Classification to identify spam for the
purpose of filtering it.
The filter is as follows:
TB! Message Filter
Hello P.Johnson,
Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 4:55:58 AM, you wrote:
PJ The filter is as follows:
PJ TB! Message Filter
PJ beginFilter
PJ UID: [97E80840.01C492FE.7689AE34.682BBB08]
PJ Name: K9\20Anti-Spam
PJ Filter: {\0D\0A\20`7`X-Text-Classification`0`\20spam\0D\0A}
PJ MoveMessage
Hello P.Johnson,
Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 4:55:58 AM, you wrote:
I've set up K9 anti-spam and the TB filters to move spam to a junk
folder, but for some reason the filter isn't working. K9 allows you
to use the message header X-Text-Classification to identify spam for
the purpose
* Dave Thomas writes:
Now comes the difficult part for me, I would like to
copy the message to another folder called Send Probably Spam and change the
Subject to nonspam and the the recipient to be a a specific email
address on our mail server. Again I have been
Hi there
I am sure this is possible but I have given up trying. Our mail
server generates messages that it thinks are Spam and prefixes the
subject with the heading Probably Spam. In most cases this is not the
case.I would like to extract these from my normal mail and put
Hello Dave Thomas everyone else,
on 25-Nov-2004 at 10:00 you (Dave Thomas) wrote:
I am sure this is possible but I have given up trying. Our mail server
generates messages that it thinks are Spam and prefixes the subject with
the heading Probably Spam.
Your mail server generates message
Hi Alexander,
Your mail server generates message that it thinks are spam? Funny... ;-)
Well, GMX doesn't know itself, too :-)
A mail from Virusverdacht ends up in the unknown sender folder. Before
I activated that folder they ended up in the spam folder...
--
Regards,
Raymund
someone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But you would have to know who the second person is.
If you organize your contacts in named address books you can mail and filter on
these addressbooks like this:
addressgroups Friends contains sender.
Place this one before the John Doe filter and your done.
--
Best
On Mon 22-Nov-04 4:33pm -0600, Luc wrote:
i've made a filter that moves a send message into a separate send
folder. The purpose is to have mail send to a certain person to be
moved in a folder that i have created for that person (something like
john doe, send messages). The condition
Hallo Luc,
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:21:49 +0100GMT (23-11-2004, 2:21 +0100, where I
live), you wrote:
L individual message to John Doe: no problem
Create an AB group johndoe, especially for John Doe
Create a filter with condition:
address group 'johndoe' contains 'all recipients'
--
Groetjes
ON Tuesday, November 23, 2004, 4:43:34 PM, you wrote:
RO Create an AB group johndoe, especially for John Doe
RO Create a filter with condition:
RO address group 'johndoe' contains 'all recipients'
Hi Roelof,
That is some nice out of the box thinking or is this revese logic ;-)
--
Best regards
Good evening list,
i've made a filter that moves a send message into a separate send
folder. The purpose is to have mail send to a certain person to be
moved in a folder that i have created for that person (something like
john doe, send messages). The condition is recipient contains
Hello Luc,
Monday, November 22, 2004, 4:33:09 PM, you wrote:
L Good evening list,
L i've made a filter that moves a send message into a separate send
L folder. The purpose is to have mail send to a certain person to be
L moved in a folder that i have created for that person (something
Hello Stuart,
It was foretold that on 23-11-2004 @ 19:09:24 GMT-0600 (which was
2:09:24 where I live) Stuart Cuddy would write:
snipped a bit
SC If the group you mail to always contains the same people, you could
SC just add an AND condition that says does not contain John Doe,
SC assuming
Hello Luc,
Monday, November 22, 2004, 7:21:49 PM, you wrote:
L But i get a a feeling that in the first scenario a solution isn't
L possible (except maybe with regex but i'm not an expert on it)
This is The Bat! There is always a way :)
Try this:
Header Field To: is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If there
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:32:35 +0100, Gerard wrote:
Hi Bat Users,
I have some strange non repeatable problems with the filtering of
emails.
I get mails that normally filter to a folder being left in my
inbox. That the filters work is proven by the fact that if I re-
filter the inbox
Hi Bat Users,
I have some strange non repeatable problems with the filtering of emails.
I get mails that normally filter to a folder being left in my inbox. That the
filters work is proven by the fact that if I re-filter the inbox with the
incoming filters they do get sorted to their correct
On Fri 19-Nov-04 6:32am -0600, Gerard wrote:
I have some strange non repeatable problems with the filtering of emails.
I get mails that normally filter to a folder being
left in my inbox.
Confirmed here. It doesn't happen often, but it's an
annoyance. Yesterday, it happened while I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Gerard,
A reminder of what Gerard on TBUDL typed on:
19 November 2004 at 13:32:35 GMT +0100
Are these known problems and are they being worked on?
I just had a similar problem. I have a filter that colours unread
messages. I also have
Hello Gerard everyone else
on 19-Nov-2004 at 13:43:02 (GMT +0100), you wrote:
I have some strange non repeatable problems with the filtering of emails.
Does it happen with account specific filters or with common filters?
Are these known problems and are they being worked on?
I believe so,
ON Friday, November 19, 2004, 4:27:40 PM, you wrote:
TB What I'm trying to say is check the sequence the filters run in.
Hi Tony,
That is not the problem in this case.
The filters work fine 99.9% of the time
--
Best regards,
Gerard
Hi Gerard,
on Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:32:35 +0100GMT, you wrote:
G I have some strange non repeatable problems with the filtering of emails.
G I get mails that normally filter to a folder being left in my inbox. That the
G filters work is proven by the fact that if I re-filter the inbox with the
G
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Gerard,
A reminder of what Gerard on TBUDL typed on:
19 November 2004 at 17:37:36 GMT +0100
That is not the problem in this case.
The filters work fine 99.9% of the time
Best thing to do is send the filter to the list so the filter
Thomas,
On 12-11-2004 13:07, you [TF] wrote in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
TF Try filtering on File attached matches *.*, and Action extract
TF attachment. I don't know whether the attachment will just be copied
TF to the external directory or detached from the message as well, but
TF it's worth a
Hello Thomas,
Try filtering on File attached matches *.*, and Action extract
attachment. I don't know whether the attachment will just be copied
to the external directory or detached from the message as well, but
it's worth a try.
It is only extracted and copied, not detached from the
TheBat-users,
I'd like a filter action to delete attachment (maybe with the option to
use Windows trash folder or real delete) without touching the mail
contents.
This would be good for freeing up space or for deleting virus-infected
attachments using a hotkey (manual filter).
Any takers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Thu, 11 Nov 2004,
@ @ at 18:36:22 +0100, when Peter Fjelsten wrote:
TheBat-users,
I'd like a filter action to delete attachment (maybe with the option to
use Windows trash
Hi Bat! Fans,
Is there a way to print out all filters?
This would make it easier to review and edit same - after a while I find I
may have a few duds which should be culled, and a few duplicate names which
could be combined into one filter.
Any way to do this?
--
John Phillips, Sydney
Hallo John,
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:18:39 +1100GMT (8-11-2004, 11:18 +0100, where I
live), you wrote:
JP Is there a way to print out all filters?
Not that I'm aware of.
You could copy and paste all filters to a text editor, but somehow I
think that that's not what you want.
--
Groetjes, Roelof
Hello Edgar,
Will this change? I thought it was a nice thing that you could
move a folder and the program could still find it.
M This is due to a bug discovered after 3.0 was released. It was already
M fixed in one of the post-release betas.
Now I'm on 1.33 but it still does not change it.
Hello MAU,
On Saturday, September 18, 2004, 10:20:16 AM, you wrote:
Will this change? I thought it was a nice thing that you could
move a folder and the program could still find it.
M This is due to a bug discovered after 3.0 was released. It was already
M fixed in one of the post-release
Hello Ian,
Here are three filters that you might want to try.
I'll take a look tonight (my time). Too busy right now.
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v3.0.2.4 Rush
Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using
Hello Ian,
Here are three filters that you might want to try.
As promised this morning, I've been doing some thorough testing and I
believe I found bug in the behaviour of Common sub-filters.
If you are subscribed to TBBeta, please see my:
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or the bug report I've
Hello Ian,
M I think it should work Ian. Are you sure you set up this structure?
M Parent Filter (*) (**)
M Sub F. 1: If A Set Colour Group 1 (***)
M Sub F. 2: If B Set Colour Group 2 (***)
M Sub F. 3: If C Set Colour Group 3 (***)
M Where:
M (*) With a condition
Hello Ian,
RA Which I think is why Miguel suggested the subfilters should NOT be set
RA to continue processing. This is then the exit command from the group of
RA subfilters.
RA Doesn't that work for you?
When I told the filter not to continue processing, then all filters
would stop
Hello Ian,
M The exit action is not needed. It is implicit when you do_not_ set the
M _sub-filters_ to continue processing.
Well, I created the various common filters to set the colour group,
set one to be the parent,...
snipped quite a bit
In my mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I said I'll test it
as
was wondering if it was possible to
IAW have the first filter that matches trigger and pass on to the
IAW remainder but not the rest of the colour setting filters?
Try to create a filter with the 'continue processing' bit set. Set all
of your colour group filters as subfilters of this parent filter. See
Hello Roelof,
Try to create a filter with the 'continue processing' bit set. Set all
of your colour group filters as subfilters of this parent filter. See
if that does what you want.
I think it should work, but I haven't tried it myself.
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial
On Wed 3 November 2004, 12:34:12 +1000, Ian A. White wrote:
one problem is that the conditions for the sub-filters
can see one message trigger two or more filters. Setting them to
continue sees it continue with the remaining sub-filters. What I would
like is something like an exit command so
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.
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.
- --
Mica
PGP key
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
that it
was filtered, but the message isn't moved.
Thanks for your suggestion. Here's the way the filter looks now.
TB! Message Filter
beginFilter
UID: [E65F6592.01C4BB04.04189CD4.4FFCA226]
Name: Yahoo!\20Groups\20Notification
Filter: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MoveMessage folder \5C\5Cp_nelson
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
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 previously
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
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
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
you own test on
your copy of my filter, do you get the same message
that I get or something else?
What that tells us is that your filter is not being
triggered at all. Instead, another filter called New
Rule is being triggered - which performs no action -
and no additional filters are being
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 filters
801 - 900 of 3249 matches
Mail list logo
