Re: Activating only certain filters
Hi there! On 2 Dec 99, at 21:21, Douglas Hinds wrote about "Re[2]: Activating only certain filt": AVK In TB this part cannot be implemented, therefore one would need AVK to implement this part as "Read" type filters. But then I would AVK *have* to open *each* of the delivery confirmations to get them AVK filtered where I want them to go to, which isn't the thing I AVK would like to do... The reason being, that TB implements no folder level read mail filters. Exactly. AVK Yes, but then all the delivery confirmations can be separated AVK from the "valuable" traffic. I usually filter on "daemon" and "mail AVK delivery" strings in the sender... That does the trick. And could be done in TB. Yes, of course, but in Pegasus I can visually separate this type of traffic using colour highlighting... Color coding is an excellent marker once learned. (I used color years ago for coding vowel sounds when teaching English to Spanish speaking children, and it's much better than the letters themselves in English in that sense, and aren't that hard to memorize). Well, *I* was taught English in a more "standard" way in my school years:-) I would think that Pegasus is *the* email client with which TB must compete (not an easy task, given Pegasus' price), AVK :-))) What does :-))) represent? A wide smile... AVK From what I heard I assume that RIT labs are mainly aimed at AVK competing with Eudora (and here luck can and must be on TB's AVK side:-)) given the Eudora's quality...) But Eudora has an establish user base and deep pockets behind it. And so what? It doesn't make it even a bit better then it is currently. AVK Well, in Pegasus one's got "quick folders" feature:-) That is, a AVK single key-combo moves the current message to a pre-defined AVK (by the user) folder. Up to 9 quick folders supported. Very good feature. Might be implemented in TB, too. AVK Actually, TB currently: AVK 1. Doesn't support the features I use every now and then (for AVK example, advanced MIME functionality like attaching *multiple* AVK messages to a message, I have attached multiple files to a single message using TB w/o problems. These multiple messages *need* to reside in the same folder. This is a really _heavy_ restriction, IMO. AVK creating/reading MIME digests, etc.); That will be supported in the v. 2. This is already supported, but the level of this support is really poor. AVK 2. Has nontheless numerous bugs in its very basic functionality. AVK That's IMHO, of course:-) I would hate to have to give up TB's bilingual spell checker and a lot of the formatting support works well for me. But I *am* going to have to put some time into devising a filtering system that I can control in an orderly way using TB as is. Well, what you currently can is to write a *large* and detailed message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:-) There are things that it lacks that have been mentioned previously, and at least some of these issues are being addressed in the v. 2. Hope so. SY, Alex (St.Petersburg, Russia) -- Thought for the day: When someone you greatly admire and respect appears to be thinking deep thoughts, they are probably thinking about lunch. --- PGP public keys on keyservers: 0xA2194BF9 (RSA); 0x214135A2 (DH/DSS) fingerprints: F222 4AEF EC9F 5FA6 7515 910A 2429 9CB1 (RSA) A677 81C9 48CF 16D1 B589 9D33 E7D5 675F 2141 35A2 (DH/DSS) --- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
Hi there! On 3 Dec 99, at 0:00, Paula Ford wrote about "Re: Activating only certain filters": AVK :-))) What does :-))) represent? The :-) represents Alexander smiling and the )) represent his double (triple?) chins. :-o! What a outburst of humour on this list recently! =8O ;-) SY, Alex (St.Petersburg, Russia) -- Thought for the day: The specialist learns more and more about less and less until, finally, he knows everything about nothing; whereas the generalist learns less and less about more and more until, finally, he knows nothing about everything. --- PGP public keys on keyservers: 0xA2194BF9 (RSA); 0x214135A2 (DH/DSS) fingerprints: F222 4AEF EC9F 5FA6 7515 910A 2429 9CB1 (RSA) A677 81C9 48CF 16D1 B589 9D33 E7D5 675F 2141 35A2 (DH/DSS) --- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Alexander all fellow TBUDL members, Wednesday, December 01, 1999 and before, Alexander wrote: ... AVK In TB this part cannot be implemented, therefore one would need AVK to implement this part as "Read" type filters. But then I would AVK *have* to open *each* of the delivery confirmations to get them AVK filtered where I want them to go to, which isn't the thing I AVK would like to do... The reason being, that TB implements no folder level read mail filters. Once again, our reactions are similar. Doing that would be excessively burdensome and time consuming, inefficient and impractical. AVK That's it. AVK In many cases, it's quite enough to *look* at the delivery conf AVK in the folder listing to say, where it came from and what does AVK this all mean. Particularly if it came in on a list. AVK Yes, but then all the delivery confirmations can be separated AVK from the "valuable" traffic. I usually filter on "daemon" and "mail AVK delivery" strings in the sender... That does the trick. And could be done in TB. AVK Following this idea, in Pegasus I have set up a filter that AVK *automatically* marks all the delivery-type messages with pale AVK gray colour in the Inbox, so that I could just skip these AVK messages... TB's filtering won't allow me this, too. Color coding is an excellent marker once learned. (I used color years ago for coding vowel sounds when teaching English to Spanish speaking children, and it's much better than the letters themselves in English in that sense, and aren't that hard to memorize). I would think that Pegasus is *the* email client with which TB must compete (not an easy task, given Pegasus' price), AVK :-))) What does :-))) represent? since the Pegasus user base is probably the group most like TB's own. AVK Wrong here. Pegasus is much a Netware-oriented package, offering AVK *real lot* of extra functionality under Netware. Then, it has AVK excellent network support (can be installed on the server side, AVK users logging in from the client machines, and this type of AVK functionality is refined all the time). All this results in the AVK situation when Pegasus is used on *large* LANs AVK (AFAIK, on Pegasus mailing list we have 30+ postmasters of 1500+ AVK user LANs), whilst TB with its current functionality is mainly a AVK single- user or family application (remember the addressbooks AVK wisible for ALL the users:-)) And you work primarily in an institutional setting, whereas although my work involves dealing with institutions, but I do so from a private (although incorporated) base. This means Pegasus is more appropriate to your setting for a number of reasons. AVK From what I heard I assume that RIT labs are mainly aimed at AVK competing with Eudora (and here luck can and must be on TB's AVK side:-)) given the Eudora's quality...) But Eudora has an establish user base and deep pockets behind it. In my case, Pegasus has performed erratically on my system AVK Just curious, how? By crashing. Eudora also. Netscape and TB don't. have poor customer service), but TB needs some polishing, to go along w some very solid basic and advanced functions. AVK That's my point, too. And maybe some rethinking and redesigning, particularly where filtering is concerned. I was discussing last night the absence of *any* way to flag messages in TB AVK Well, in Pegasus one's got "quick folders" feature:-) That is, a AVK single key-combo moves the current message to a pre-defined AVK (by the user) folder. Up to 9 quick folders supported. Very good feature. AVK snipped the rest, since we're apparently thinking similarly... Thank you for the detailed explanation. While I can see and appreciate your point, I feel committed to TB and enjoy using it in many ways that Pegasus never achieved for me. (In fact, Pegasus has never run problem free for me). TB is excellent for composition it and it's also very stable. AVK Actually, TB currently: AVK 1. Doesn't support the features I use every now and then (for AVK example, advanced MIME functionality like attaching *multiple* AVK messages to a message, I have attached multiple files to a single message using TB w/o problems. AVK creating/reading MIME digests, etc.); That will be supported in the v. 2. AVK 2. Has nontheless numerous bugs in its very basic functionality. AVK That's IMHO, of course:-) I would hate to have to give up TB's bilingual spell checker and a lot of the formatting support works well for me. But I *am* going to have to put some time into devising a filtering system that I can control in an orderly way using TB as is. There are things that it lacks that have been mentioned previously, and at least some of these issues are being addressed in the v. 2. Best regards, Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation
Re: Activating only certain filters
On Thursday, December 02, 1999, Douglas Hinds wrote: AVK :-))) What does :-))) represent? The :-) represents Alexander smiling and the )) represent his double (triple?) chins. -- Paula Ford The Bat! 1.36 (reg) Windows 95 4.0 Build 950 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
On Wednesday, December 01, 1999, Ali Martin wrote: I don't see the advantage either. I think the present implementation is an attempt to make things clearer but they have, to me, done the opposite. :( The filter manager should, IMHO, be just like the address book in design. ... Despite Douglas' problems with Calypso, it has a lovely filtering system. All of what you mentioned is accomplished in a simpler and more elegant manner. A single filter, for example, can be set to apply to both incoming and outgoing messages. Filters can run automatically, of course, but can also be picked off a quickly accessible list to run at any time and much more - very nice implementation. TB started with an awkward construct and now they are probably stuck with for the sake of backward compatibility, unfortunately, but they certainly can improve, and I'm sure they will. -- Paula Ford The Bat! 1.36 (reg) Windows 95 4.0 Build 950 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
Hi there! On 30 Nov 99, at 16:09, Douglas Hinds wrote about "Re[2]: Activating only certain filt": Monday, November 29, 1999, 9:05:57 AM, Alexander wrote in response to my saying: AVK 1. Managing the Inbox. What essentially is done to my Inbox in AVK Pegasus? On every _opening_, the messages get filtered from AVK it to the \Unread\... hierarchy. Is this the inbox itself for each account? Hierarchy here represents a folder? Reading below, perhaps you mean a color. In Pegasus, all the new mail arrives to *one* Inbox (Pegasus calls it "New mail folder"), provided that you install the program as single-user and use identities under this single user (this is how I run Pegasus). As for "hierarchy", here it represents the set of folders, like: \Unread\TBUDL; \Unread\TBBeta; \unread\Work\Similarity problem; etc., etc. The major part of my everyday traffic is moved from Inbox to these folders automatically, so that I never see it in Inbox. The rest of the messages (i.e. the messages that remain in the Inbox) are coloured into various colours of the rainbow:-) Delivery confirmations are made pale gray; the messages from my ISP are made bright green, etc., etc:-) AVK This can be implemented with TB all right. But then, on _closing_ AVK of Inbox, *some* messages get filtered to the other folders as AVK well (such as delivery confirmations, messages from my ISP, etc. AVK The crux of the matter here is that I usually just need to *see* AVK them, but don't need to read these, at least on the regular AVK basis). I assume you just need to see the information given on your columns bar. In that case, your needs seem similar to mine. Yes, but this applies only to a special fraction of my traffic (the "technical" messages mostly, i.e. the messages that I just want to know they exist:-) but needn't read...) AVK In TB this part cannot be implemented, therefore one would need AVK to implement this part as "Read" type filters. But then I would AVK *have* to open *each* of the delivery confirmations to get them AVK filtered where I want them to go to, which isn't the thing I AVK would like to do... Once again, our reactions are similar. Doing that would be excessively burdensome and time consuming, inefficient and impractical. That's it. AVK In many cases, it's quite enough to *look* at the delivery conf AVK in the folder listing to say, where it came from and what does AVK this all mean. Particularly if it came in on a list. Yes, but then all the delivery confirmations can be separated from the "valuable" traffic. I usually filter on "daemon" and "mail delivery" strings in the sender... That does the trick. AVK Following this idea, in Pegasus I have set up a filter that AVK *automatically* marks all the delivery-type messages with pale AVK gray colour in the Inbox, so that I could just skip these AVK messages... TB's filtering won't allow me this, too. I would think that Pegasus is *the* email client with which TB must compete (not an easy task, given Pegasus' price), :-))) since the Pegasus user base is probably the group most like TB's own. Wrong here. Pegasus is much a Netware-oriented package, offering *real lot* of extra functionality under Netware. Then, it has excellent network support (can be installed on the server side, users logging in from the client machines, and this type of functionality is refined all the time). All this results in the situation when Pegasus is used on *large* LANs (AFAIK, on Pegasus mailing list we have 30+ postmasters of 1500+ user LANs), whilst TB with its current functionality is mainly a single- user or family application (remember the addressbooks wisible for ALL the users:-)) From what I heard I assume that RIT labs are mainly aimed at competing with Eudora (and here luck can and must be on TB's side:-)) given the Eudora's quality...) In my case, Pegasus has performed erratically on my system Just curious, how? have poor customer service), but TB needs some polishing, to go along w some very solid basic and advanced functions. That's my point, too. TB, the bloated Netscape (and a number of others I've removed) just open and run w/o problems, but I was discussing last night the absence of *any* way to flag messages in TB Well, in Pegasus one's got "quick folders" feature:-) That is, a single key-combo moves the current message to a pre-defined (by the user) folder. Up to 9 quick folders supported. snipped the rest, since we're apparently thinking similarly... Thank you for the detailed explanation. While I can see and appreciate your point, I feel committed to TB and enjoy using it in many ways that Pegasus never achieved for me. (In fact, Pegasus has never run problem free for me). TB is excellent for composition it and it's also very stable. Actually, TB currently: 1. Doesn't support the features I use every now and then (for example, advanced MIME functionality like
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Ali all fellow TBUDL members, Wednesday, December 01, 1999, 12:53:11 AM, Ali wrote in response to my saying: Since my past email client had an accounts column, it was easy for me to keep house manually, depending on source, content, importance, follow up required etc. and the decision I'd make at the moment. In TB I *can't* do that, without destroying my parked flags (that's what they are to me, and all they are to me). AM TB! keeps all accounts completely independent of each other. I AM personally prefer this but that's just my humble opinion. :) If an account column was available in the "setup columns" menu, TB users would have a choice of using one structure and / or the other. AM If the accounts are kept separate from each other then there's no AM need for an accounts column. :) Agreed, in general terms. But there *could* be occasion in which one would want to mix messages from different accounts (on a single theme, for instance) in the same folder. Thinking about it, if the folder column could programmed to show only the receiving account as the final destination) and the message itself never left there, but was instead dynamically linked to whatever visual structure the user chose to give it, it seems to me at the moment that this might be an ideal solution. (However, the idea hadn't *occurred* until this moment). In other words, all messages would reside in the inbox of the receiving account, or even in a single message depository. The rest of it would b accomplished with short cuts, aside from what was deleted from trash itself or wiped. This arrangement would make it very easy to find anything, if there was any doubt as to it's location. Any comments? How difficult would this be to implement on non-windows systems (such as Linux)? AM Outlook is more along what you seem to be suggesting where mail AM from all accounts is kept in one area, the argument being, why AM separate the mail when all accounts belong to the user. In this case, the assumption is that the user wants to see all incoming mail on arrival, without jumping around between folders then filter or move them from there. However, this arrangement in no way precludes the user from filtering given messages to a given folder on arrival. My previous email client was Calypso, which I liked using until it crashed for good and found out that mcsdallas, the distributor - which is either *only* a distributor or (unlike TB), has *very* poor contact with it's development staff and *no* functioning user group I could find - is made up of let's say less than helpful individuals (an understatement), which is nuf said for Calypso, for now. I *have* used both Outlook Express and Outlook 98 a little, but like most MS products, incorrectly anticipates what it thinks the user wants and tries to impose that on the user, while successfully impeding the user from achieving what *he or she* wants to do. (nuf said for Outlook MS also, except that ms, or rather mswin95, is part of the problem that arose w/ Calypso and never-the-less-must still be dealt with for now - until changing os's - unlike Calypso which can't do many of the things TB does so well anyway). Incidentally, as for changing OS's, the only thing holding me back is developer support for the applications I use and the time required for doing what we're doing here - assimilated and familiarizing myself with the paradigm and design of TB, as well as looking ahead to where "we" want to go, consensually. Once again, you appear to be ignoring read reply message filters, AM ... since they don't seem to be an immediate issue just yet. :) I discovered that, further on in your post. ... AM Yes, I am eagerly awaiting help file documentation on 'regular AM expressions' use in TB!. So far, all my knowledge is being attained AM through other apps that use Regexps. Have you had any results? AM I have used regular expressions a couple times but can't find use for AM it in my own message filtering. Steve Lamb mentioned that regular AM expressions could make me not have to create all the rules that I use, AM but I don't think so, since for each folder that I create to which AM messages are filtered, I need to create at least one rule with at AM least one string defined. Regular expressions may help if a rule has AM many strings defined and one could possibly create a regular AM expression that covers all the strings, thus preventing my having to AM enter all the strings separately. I *do* have a couple folders with AM many alternate strings entered, but the headers vary so much in unique AM content, that using a regular expression to accurately cover strings AM that will correspond to all and only those messages that I wish to AM filter is nigh unto impossible. Understood. Looks like there's no immediate need there on my part either, but *would* like to know more, once more info is available. Using alt + f + f gives you a choice of any or all or the 4 sets available - in,
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Paula all fellow TBUDL members, Wednesday, December 01, 1999, 4:11:20 AM, Paula wrote: PF Despite Douglas' problems with Calypso, it has a lovely filtering PF system. All of what you mentioned is accomplished in a simpler and more PF elegant manner... Just a short clarification: The problem w/ Calypso's crashing can no doubt be resolved. And I liked the product, not the service. The real problem is with mcsdallas and their whole way of thinking, their general attitude. I doubt that they themselves developed the product and anyone buying it is basically on his own. Best regards, Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] PF On Wednesday, December 01, 1999, Ali Martin wrote: I don't see the advantage either. I think the present implementation is an attempt to make things clearer but they have, to me, done the opposite. :( The filter manager should, IMHO, be just like the address book in design. ... PF Despite Douglas' problems with Calypso, it has a lovely filtering PF system. All of what you mentioned is accomplished in a simpler and more PF elegant manner. A single filter, for example, can be set to apply to PF both incoming and outgoing messages. Filters can run automatically, of PF course, but can also be picked off a quickly accessible list to run at PF any time and much more - very nice implementation. TB started with PF an awkward construct and now they are probably stuck with for the sake PF of backward compatibility, unfortunately, but they certainly can PF improve, and I'm sure they will. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[3]: Activating only certain filters
Morning Douglas Hinds, If an account column was available in the "setup columns" menu, There is no account column, but the folder column indicates the account as well... TB users would have a choice of using one structure and / or the other. Filtering an accounts messages to another would probably simulate multiple accounts with combined message base quite well. Another not yet possible idea would be the implentation of a kind of alias option, that would basically allow folders showing mails based on a message filter defined for that folder. Agreed, in general terms. But there *could* be occasion in which one would want to mix messages from different accounts (on a single theme, for instance) in the same folder. Currently, an example would be the message finder results window, I guess.. -- +--Jast |on Windows 98 4.10 Build A :with The Bat! 1.36 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
On Wednesday, December 01, 1999, Alexander V. Kiselev wrote: In Pegasus, all the new mail arrives to *one* Inbox (Pegasus calls it "New mail folder"), provided that you install the program as single-user and use identities under this single user (this is how I run Pegasus). In TB, a user could filter incoming messages to all other accounts to one InBox, if they wished, by creating just one filter on each account, then filter them from there into one set of folders. But, how does Pegasus deal with identifying the account from which you want a reply sent? One thing I really like about keeping the accounts separate is not having to choose which of my accounts I want to use for new messages or replies, which is what I had to do with my last mailer. It also had a single InBox. The major part of my everyday traffic is moved from Inbox to these folders automatically, so that I never see it in Inbox. The rest of the messages (i.e. the messages that remain in the Inbox) are coloured into various colours of the rainbow:-) Delivery confirmations are made pale gray; the messages from my ISP are made bright green, etc., etc:-) Yuck. ;) I would be constantly trying to remember what meaning I had assigned to the color codes. One thing I like about FoxMail, and I think Eudora has the same feature, is the ability to create my own little labels with text on them. So, I can create a label that says, for example, "Reply". I manage to remember what that means. -- Paula Ford The Bat! 1.36 (reg) Windows 95 4.0 Build 950 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
On Monday, November 29, 1999, Douglas Hinds wrote: Is that "my" confusion or is that simply an option not explained in the TB help file? ... OK, your confusion stems from filtering being inadequately explained in the Help file. You won't get an argument from me about the Help file, but it is what it is for now. There's alot any new user has to discover on their own at this point. Either they like the program enough to bother or not. BTW: If you read German, there is nice site for help on the Web, but I don't have the URL, as I don't. This problem could have been avoided simply by making the manual only option contingent on selecting active first, a very common button implementation (it would be grayed out until selecting active). Yes, could be done for sure and leave the check mark on the manual only option when deactivating, but grey it out. PF Right, thus the option on the re-filter dialog for "Manual filters PF only". Re-filtering without checking that option will invoke all PF active filters, regardless of whether or not the "Manual only" PF option is checked for the filter. The funky part is that the re-filtering menu asks for this, uselessly. Not really. There are situations where a user wants to invoke only the manual filters. I have filters that I use that way. PF There is nothing in the Help file about this recently added feature PF [regular expressions] and no one here is sure how to use it, but PF you don't really need it for most filtering you normally want to PF do. How do you know if you don't know what it does? You are being protective, perhaps. I don't think so. I don't tend to be protective of software. :) There was some discussion of the uses of regular expressions on the list and I think most users will find little need for the feature. , although there *is* something on "Special syntax", "used for signal strings", which I assume is what that refers to. PF No, this doesn't refer to Regular Expression. It refers to syntax that PF may used in conditions in any case. Are you sure? Yes, read the section in the Help file. What's a Regular Expression, then? Check the list archives. I think the discussion is in there. If it was possible to set the ticker for just arrived messages, and the ticker showed the folder the message was in, this would be less necessary. I could filter more things automatically. Also, while the ticker can be turned on with a keystroke set, to turn it off you have to go into a menu. Well, I would personally be opposed to attaching a lot of filtering functionality to the ticker, since filtering can be accomplished in the program itself. You are right as things stand, but this also implies a need for an accessible filter manager ... Has been suggested by others. PF I don't use the ticker. That is understandable, in terms of the present implementation. But the concept is good, and could b useful if taken further. I can't imagine ever using it. To me, it's akin to having a cell phone constantly stuck in your ear. Even Netscape Messenger lets you both flag and establish a 5 tiered priority. There are several things I like about Messenger better than TB, as well as every other mailer I've used or tried, which is probably about all of them not branded MS. What do you think about having filters implemented for user set flags? That's a damn good idea, even if I had to think of it and say so myself. Has been suggested by others. I agree that it would be nice, as would flags of some sort. Most people want color coding, but I don't prefer it myself. PF Many things can be accomplished with TB once you start thinking PF like it does. :) OK, but I also want it (and the developers) to think like I do. (You and I are coming at this from a somewhat different genetic perspective here, in terms of x's y's - and no offense meant - after all, I'm part x myself, and some of my favorite people are totally x people). I going to ignore that. -- Paula Ford The Bat! 1.36 (reg) Windows 95 4.0 Build 950 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
Douglas Hinds wrote: They are there to use if and when they're changed to active status. But none if this is explained anywhere. You yourself are just discovering these details. As with many of the other features of The Bat! :) Right, there's a logic to it. The point is that it's a totally undocumented logic, which isn't very logical in itself when you consider that there's a universe of logical patterns that could be implemented for a given purpose. There is generally no one way of doing *anything*. But the logic chosen, whatever it is, should be specified. Call it what it is. Why be a party to an absence? TB needs a decent help file, but between TBUDL, fiddling around oneself and even resorting to the developers once in a while, the show will go on. Paula and I have, on more than one occasion, stated our displeasure with the help file. We've more or less gotten over the 'culture shock' of having to work with an incomplete help file, so although we seem apparently tolerant, be rest assured that we have shared your frustration and still do at times. Are you sure? What's a Regular Expression, then? Let me quote a little excerpt from one of my applications since I find it difficult to define a regular expression in one sentence: ==8 A normal case-sensitive search for the string test string will look for and match the exact sequence of characters t e s t space s t r i n g. This is how all simple searches work. They are very single-minded in the sense that you must explicitly tell them exactly what you want to search for. For example, if you wanted to search for test string except that you didnt care how many spaces separated the two words, and, for that matter, they might be line feeds or carriage returns or tabs and not just spaces separating the words, you would have a hard time getting this done using a simple search. You would end up having to do a separate search for each possibility as in: testspacestring testtabstring testcrstring testlfstring testcrlfstring But what about the case where there are two spaces between the words? Or a combination of a space and a tab? Pretty soon youll probably give up and look for the words manually. Think of a Regular Expression as a string mold. Whereas a simple search string will find and match only exactly that string, a single Regular Expression will match a whole slew of strings that conform to your specifications. Just to whet your palette, here is a Regular Expression: test[spacetabcrlf]+string =8 I could send you the whole document if you are interested. Regular expressions can be quite useful in filtering but doesn't address the type of functionality that you've been querying. PF I believe that Outgoing Mail filters work on all messages sent. All PF messages being sent may actually go through the Outbox. I've never PF really noticed. It has to be assumed they do, if the following quote from the help file is true: "the source folder (for incoming mail it is always Inbox, for outgoing - Outbox and this cannot be changed)" That's correct. All outgoing mail passes through the outbox. When you have a program that's as powerful as this one, with a built in commitment to get down to the roots of things, it's going to attract users who share that vision, that commitment, and this helps make things more consistent, more congruent, which is as things should be. Constructive criticism is both positive and necessary. We have to help the developers be aware of the issues, and these are real issues. Agreed. Unfortunately, I do. And this is logical, since I *don't* want to go around looking into all my accounts and folders to see what came in, or even remember be how many messages were in each one before the last mail download. Nor am I going to be able to read all the mail in those boxes, or even want to. It would seem to me that you wish to first filter mail that you know you will not be reading right away. The incoming message filter set should take care of that. How about using a read messages filter set for the remaining new messages left in the Inbox? In so doing, after reading each remaining message in the inbox, it's filtered to it's appropriate destination folder upon moving to the next message. You may add to filter rules as needed that the read message be marked unread upon filtering if you like. This may be especially necessary if you're just scanning the messages and not really reading them in their entirety. So the boxes are *always* going to show unread mail in them, which I can either weed out as I go by filtering incrementally or by doing it manually, which was done more easily with my last email client, since mail from all accounts was viewed and sorted by the column selected (date, account, subject, sender etc.). TB v. 2 is what may save the day in this regard. Doesn't simply clicking the mouse on each column header sort the mail
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Ali, Thanks! I'll try that! One question - just for my own sanity - what exactly are "Kludges"? It sounds like something a plumber might have to deal with ;-) Thanks, Jason Jason Ellis wrote: I too am having problems getting my filters in TB to work properly. I've managed to get most things filtering OK, but, amazingly, the one thing I haven't been able to get to filter at all is this mailing list! And yes, when I received the signup e-mail it gave instructions for setting up a filter for this list, but when I followed those instructions, it didn't work. The filter is there, but it's not filtering the messages. Can anyone offer some guidance? This works for me, without fail, since my subscription. :) I place the TBUDL and TBBeta filters at the top of my list of filters. I created an incoming mail filter. Sited the destination folder (In my case it's Inbox/tbudl). The filter string used is '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Location : Kludges Rule : Active. And that's it! Jason Ellis, CEO Hosting Solutions, Inc. www.windowswebhost.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[3]: Activating only certain filters
Hello, the Bat! list recipients, Tuesday, November 30, 1999, Jason Ellis wrote to Ali Martin about Activating only certain filters: JE One question - just for my own sanity - what exactly are "Kludges"? It JE sounds like something a plumber might have to deal with ;-) It's a FIDO slang for message headers. -- Best regards, Oleg Zalyalov. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! version 1.36 under Windows NT 4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 6 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
Oleg Zalyalov wrote: Tuesday, November 30, 1999, Jason Ellis wrote to Ali Martin about Activating only certain filters: JE One question - just for my own sanity - what exactly are "Kludges"? It JE sounds like something a plumber might have to deal with ;-) ROTFL!!! That's a good one. It's a FIDO slang for message headers. The terminology ought to be consistent but 'RFC Headers' and 'Kludges' are used interchangeably in the interface creating some amount of unnecessary confusion. -- Ali Martin| Using The Bat! v1.38 Beta/4 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6) [ How many of you believe in telekinesis? Raise MY hand! ] ___ -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
JE One question - just for my own sanity - what exactly are "Kludges"? It JE sounds like something a plumber might have to deal with ;-) ROTFL!!! That's a good one. Thanks. OK, so I tried the filtering suggestion to get this list filtered and, as with the other filtering attempts for this mailing list, it didn't work - still won't filter. Anyone else have any suggestions? I've been able to filter everything else except this one mailing list. Thanks, Jason It's a FIDO slang for message headers. The terminology ought to be consistent but 'RFC Headers' and 'Kludges' are used interchangeably in the interface creating some amount of unnecessary confusion. Jason Ellis, CEO Hosting Solutions, Inc. www.windowswebhost.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
Jason Ellis wrote: OK, so I tried the filtering suggestion to get this list filtered and, as with the other filtering attempts for this mailing list, it didn't work - still won't filter. Anyone else have any suggestions? I've been able to filter everything else except this one mailing list. Now that's really strange. :-/ I don't think that suggesting other ways of creating the filter is the answer. There's most likely something that you're missing. What happens to the TBUDL mail then? Do they all remain in the Inbox? Where in the list of filters have you placed the rule for filtering TBUDL mail? Do you use more than one e-mail accounts? IOW, we need more info. :) -- Ali Martin| Using The Bat! v1.38 Beta/4 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6) [ Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. ] ___ -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Ali, What happens to the TBUDL mail then? Do they all remain in the Inbox? It all remains in the inbox, yes. Where in the list of filters have you placed the rule for filtering TBUDL mail? I placed it first, as you suggested. Do you use more than one e-mail accounts? Yes - I have 9 e-mail accounts right now. IOW, we need more info. :) OK. As far as I can tell, this is the only list I'm trying to filter that doesn't have an "easy" filter criteria (all the others I can filter based on either the from, to, or something standardized in the subject line.) This one doesn't seem to have any of that - as you pointed out, the only way apparently to filter this is based on what's in the headers, because the to is just to me, the from is from whoever sent it (which is different than all of my other lists I am filtering in that on those the from is the list address), and there's no standardized subject line. Jason Ellis, CEO Hosting Solutions, Inc. www.windowswebhost.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[3]: Activating only certain filters
Hi, OK. As far as I can tell, this is the only list I'm trying to filter that doesn't have an "easy" filter criteria (all the others I can filter based on either the from, to, or something standardized in the subject line.) This one doesn't seem to have any of that - as you pointed out, the only way apparently to filter this is based on what's in the headers, because the to is just to me, the from is from whoever sent it (which is different than all of my other lists I am filtering in that on those the from is the list address), and there's no standardized subject line. I'm a little confused from what everyone is saying here. Maybe I missed part of the discussion, but for me, just filtering on TBUDL alone in the Recipient field works just fine. All messages come in with someones name in the recipient field but the email address there always is [EMAIL PROTECTED] For instance doesn't the To: field in this message as you have received it look like "Jason Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes)? Thanks, Kevin Using The Bat! 1.38 Beta/3 Under Windows NT4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 3 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
Jason Ellis wrote: It all remains in the inbox, yes. OK. I placed it first, as you suggested. OK. All this does is to ensure that this filter is applied first so that if you wish to filter private mail from TBUDL subscribers, you don't accidentally filter mail from them that's sent to TBUDL. Yes - I have 9 e-mail accounts right now. It sounds silly, but make sure that you are creating the filter for the correct account. I've personally made a mistake like this. :) OK. As far as I can tell, this is the only list I'm trying to filter that doesn't have an "easy" filter criteria (all the others I can filter based on either the from, to, or something standardized in the subject line.) This one doesn't seem to have any of that - as you pointed out, the only way apparently to filter this is based on what's in the headers, because the to is just to me, the from is from whoever sent it (which is different than all of my other lists I am filtering in that on those the from is the list address), and there's no standardized subject line. This is why I personally use such a non-specific filter, though I'm sure that more specific filtering is successfully used by other subscribers. What my filter is doing is selecting all messages in which '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' occurs anywhere in the RFC Headers. You could try a filter for the message body using a string that appears in the TBUDL signature but that's dangerous IMO since messages could potentially leak through. I'd generally avoid using message body strings as filtering criteria. Check your string syntax as well. Do you have the string in quotes? If so, then it's now case sensitive which may mess things up. Check stuff like this first. With the filter rule I gave you, do not need to use any special syntax. -- Ali Martin| Using The Bat! v1.38 Beta/4 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6) [ One man's constant is another man's variable. - Perlis ] ___ -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
Kevin Boylan wrote: I'm a little confused from what everyone is saying here. Maybe I missed part of the discussion, but for me, just filtering on TBUDL alone in the Recipient field works just fine. All messages come in with someones name in the recipient field but the email address there always is [EMAIL PROTECTED] For instance doesn't the To: field in this message as you have received it look like "Jason Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the quotes)? There are various ways of filtering TBUDL mail and your way is certainly one of them. I suggested the way that I do it and it doesn't work for him which is very strange. I'm trying to see what the problem is. -- Ali Martin| Using The Bat! v1.38 Beta/4 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6) [ Second star to the right straight on till morning... ] ___ -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[5]: Activating only certain filters
Hi Jason, I hadn't noticed that before. I'll try adding that to the filter and seeing if it works. Remember not to ADD it to the filter as then the filter will check for all of the strings you have in there. That should be the only string that is being checked. Thanks, Kevin Boylan Using The Bat! 1.38 Beta/3 Under Windows NT4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 3 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[3]: Activating only certain filters
\\\|/// / ~ _ \ (- O o -) --oOOo-(_)-oOOo--- Hello Jason, JE OK. As far as I can tell, this is the only list I'm trying to filter JE that doesn't have an "easy" filter criteria (all the others I can JE filter based on either the from, to, or something standardized in the JE subject line.) This one doesn't seem to have any of that - as you JE pointed out, the only way apparently to filter this is based on what's JE in the headers, because the to is just to me, the from is from whoever JE sent it (which is different than all of my other lists I am filtering JE in that on those the from is the list address), and there's no JE standardized subject line. not entirely correct: if you look at the 'To'-adress: only the name differs... you can easily filter on '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' in the To-field for this list... (that's the way i do it... it works just fine) HTH :-) -- Der Immer Jodelende Schweizer In Lederhosen Roelmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I've got to sit down and work out where I stand. .oooO ( ) Oooo. --\ (( ) \_)) / (_/ Visit the official site of Enigma at http://www.enigma3.com (it's really worth it!) -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[3]: Activating only certain filters
Hi Douglas, Tuesday, November 30, 1999, 2:09:45 PM, Douglas Hinds wrote: Hello Alexander all fellow TBUDL members, It's probably better to do it manually. (And you *don't* have to select "manual only" when re-filtering, that choice is only there for display purposes - just to say hello). The "manual only" choice is not just for show. If you select manual only, then your AUTOMATIC active filters are turned off for that filtering operation. Thanks for writing, Januk Aggarwal [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Ali all fellow TBUDL members, Tuesday, November 30, 1999, 3:20:22 AM, Ali wrote in response to my saying: What's a Regular Expression, then? AM Let me quote a little excerpt from one of my applications since I find AM it difficult to define a regular expression in one sentence: AM ==8 AM A normal case-sensitive search for the string test string will AM look for and match the exact sequence of characters t e s t AM space s t r i n g. This is how all simple searches work. They AM are very single-minded in the sense that you must explicitly tell AM them exactly what you want to search for. For example, if you AM wanted to search for test string except that you didnt care how AM many spaces separated the two words, and, for that matter, they AM might be line feeds or carriage returns or tabs and not just AM spaces separating the words, you would have a hard time getting AM this done using a simple search. You would end up having to do a AM separate search for each possibility as in: AM testspacestring AM testtabstring AM testcrstring AM testlfstring AM testcrlfstring AM But what about the case where there are two spaces between the words? AM Or a combination of a space and a tab? Pretty soon youll probably AM give up and look for the words manually. Or individually AM Think of a Regular Expression as a string mold. Whereas a simple AM search string will find and match only exactly that string. A single AM Regular Expression will match a whole slew of strings that conform to AM your specifications. Just to whet your palette, here is a Regular AM Expression: AM test[spacetabcrlf]+string AM =8 AM I could send you the whole document if you are interested. Please do. AM Regular expressions can be quite useful in filtering but doesn't AM address the type of functionality that you've been querying. PF I believe that Outgoing Mail filters work on all messages sent. All PF messages being sent may actually go through the Outbox. I've never PF really noticed. As Ali has pointed out, Outgoing Mail filters work on any folder when re-filtering, if the Outgoing Mail filters set is selected for it. When you have a program that's as powerful as this one, with a built in commitment to get down to the roots of things, it's going to attract users who share that vision, that commitment, and this helps make things more consistent, more congruent, which is as things should be. Constructive criticism is both positive and necessary. We have to help the developers be aware of the issues, and these are real issues. AM Agreed. Unfortunately, I do. And this is logical, since I *don't* want to go around looking into all my accounts and folders to see what came in, or even remember be how many messages were in each one before the last mail download. Nor am I going to be able to read all the mail in those boxes, or even want to. AM It would seem to me that you wish to first filter mail that you know AM you will not be reading right away. The incoming message filter set AM should take care of that. AM How about using a read messages filter set for the remaining new AM messages left in the Inbox? In so doing, after reading each remaining AM message in the inbox, it's filtered to it's appropriate destination AM folder upon moving to the next message. I would do that via manual only and re-filtering, as the filter would activate on leaving the message, otherwise. (Sometimes I will look briefly at a message and leave it open until later, or just mark it with parked for later). AM You may add to filter rules as needed that the read message be AM marked unread upon filtering if you like. This may be especially AM necessary if you're just scanning the messages and not really AM reading them in their entirety. In this scenario, would the message never the less be moved? So the boxes are *always* going to show unread mail in them, which I can either weed out as I go by filtering incrementally or by doing it manually, which was done more easily with my last email client, since mail from all accounts was viewed and sorted by the column selected (date, account, subject, sender etc.). TB v. 2 is what may save the day in this regard. AM Doesn't simply clicking the mouse on each column header sort the mail AM according to date, subject, sender etc.? Yes, but there is no account column. In that program, a single inbox accommodated all incoming messages but the receiving account was distinguished by the column. Also, since TB lets me flag only by using parked, I could not move those manually w/o loosing the "flag", which would not be true if filtering, instead (The parked flag is left *and* the message is moved). Alternatively, I could refuse to include parked messages, which would then be left, and these could then be moved manually to their own separate flagged only folder, for that classification (say, a list). AM You should also look at the View |
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Ali all fellow TBUDL members, Sunday, November 28, 1999, 5:14:09 PM, Ali wrote in response to my saying: after selecting for Read Mail (for instance), "Manual filters only" can be selected or not, whereas when creating a filter itself, it can be either active, manual only, both or neither. What then, would neither do? Would it still filter (after all it *is* a rule). Neither does nothing, just as not active does nothing. AM The difference with having only 'active' checked and 'active' and AM 'manual only' checked concerns incoming mail only. This is not true if the filter is a "read message" filter. In that case the filter's action will be implemented upon leaving an opened message, unless it's marked unread again first, unless it's also manual only.. And I assume the same is true for Reply filters. AM It has nothing to do with a re-filter operation. A re-filter AM operation reruns the filter rules that are usually run on incoming AM mail automatically, as well the rules that are reserved to be run AM manually. Depending on the rule set selected, and whether you want to run active not manual only or not. AM If during the re-filter operation, you specify that only AM 'manual only' filters are run then the automatic filters for AM incoming mail will not be rerun. By George you are right. This qualifies the statement above, which should include: Unless you select manual only, then active filters that are *not* also manual only will not be triggered. AM Selecting 'manual only' during a re-filter operation will prevent the AM automatic incoming mail filters from running. This switch has no AM effect on whether or not manual filters are run and I agree with this AM system. Aren't you doing a manual operation when re-filtering? So AM isn't this when manual filters should be run? :) Since my past email client had an accounts column, it was easy for me to keep house manually, depending on source, content, importance, follow up required etc. and the decision I'd make at the moment. In TB I *can't* do that, without destroying my parked flags (that's what they are to me, and all they are to me). AM Well see if you get my logic: AM a) To get a filter to work *at all*, you have to have the 'active' AMswitch checked. AM b) An incoming filter with only the 'active' switch checked, is a AMfilter that will work on incoming mail and are run on any new mail AMreceived. These filters are also run during re-filter operations AMcarried out on *any* folder provided the 'manual only' option is AM*not* checked. Once again, you appear to be ignoring read reply message filters, but otherwise we agree. AM c) An incoming filter with both the 'active' and 'manual only' options AMchecked will only be run during manual filtering operations, AMnamely, folder re-filtering exercises. The 'manual only' toggle AMswitch in the folder re-filtering process, doesn't affect the AMrunning of manual filters but, in fact, affects the running of the AM'automatic' filter rules. *That* was what I wasn't capturing. It *prevents* active only filters from being triggered. AMBecause of this, the only way to prevent a 'manual only' filter AMfrom running during a re-filter operation is to uncheck the 'manual AMonly' option in each rules properties. Which would then make it an active rule. If you didn't want it to run at all, you would be better off by unchecking the active option. AM It would seem to me that you need functionality that Alexander AM Kiselev made reference to and that his 'filter sets' support. In AM The Bats! terminology, you seem to need the ability to create AM *multiple* incoming filter sets made up of rules to be run 'manual AM only' so that you may select which set you need to run at a AM particular time. I say this because you are sounding as if you AM need only particular 'manual only' filters to run during each AM re-filter operation instead of all of them at the same time. Very good Ali, that's it. But - I can see a need to filter automatically *first* so that I *can* filter a folder without invoking all rules. I would need the mail divided already, so that the rule or rules applied apply only to the mail in that box, so that the conditions met will not activate the criteria of all the other rules pertaining to the account. But I am not going to change to Pegasus, I am going to get to the bottom of this, and work with this group *and* the developers, if needed (if these things really do show the lack of a consistent and comprehensive logic structure, rather than one I haven't yet discovered). AM I hope my input has helped. :) No question about it. Right now it did. (If you don't try this stuff out, you can't see what it does). And I can see that you more or less do have it down. I have been lumping Read Messages" and "Replied Messages" in with "Incoming Mail" conceptually, when as you point out, these are dealt with separately (not
Re[4]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Jason, in response to your saying: JE the one thing I haven't been able to get to filter at all is this JE mailing list! My rule is as follows: The 2 strings both filter on [EMAIL PROTECTED] The two locations are sender and kludges and of course are yes. It's active only. It works fine, but the fact that 2 strings were used indicates that it didn't at first (I'm assuming that, because I can only recall it with 99% confidence). I can't swear both strings are required, but in any case it works. JE And yes, when I received the signup e-mail it gave instructions for JE setting up a filter for this list, I don't recall seeing that. Should look. Best regards, Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
Douglas Hinds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AM It has nothing to do with a re-filter operation. A re-filter AM operation reruns the filter rules that are usually run on incoming AM mail automatically, as well the rules that are reserved to be run AM manually. Depending on the rule set selected, and whether you want to run active not manual only or not. Sure. Since my past email client had an accounts column, it was easy for me to keep house manually, depending on source, content, importance, follow up required etc. and the decision I'd make at the moment. In TB I *can't* do that, without destroying my parked flags (that's what they are to me, and all they are to me). TB! keeps all accounts completely independent of each other. I personally prefer this but that's just my humble opinion. :) If the accounts are kept separate from each other then there's no need for an accounts column. :) Outlook is more along what you seem to be suggesting where mail from all accounts is kept in one area, the argument being, why separate the mail when all accounts belong to the user. Once again, you appear to be ignoring read reply message filters, ... since they don't seem to be an immediate issue just yet. :) but otherwise we agree. OK. AMBecause of this, the only way to prevent a 'manual only' filter AMfrom running during a re-filter operation is to uncheck the 'manual AMonly' option in each rules properties. Which would then make it an active rule. If you didn't want it to run at all, you would be better off by unchecking the active option. Err. That's what I meant actually. My booboo. :) AM Yes, I am eagerly awaiting help file documentation on 'regular AM expressions' use in TB!. So far, all my knowledge is being attained AM through other apps that use Regexps. Have you had any results? I have used regular expressions a couple times but can't find use for it in my own message filtering. Steve Lamb mentioned that regular expressions could make me not have to create all the rules that I use, but I don't think so, since for each folder that I create to which messages are filtered, I need to create at least one rule with at least one string defined. Regular expressions may help if a rule has many strings defined and one could possibly create a regular expression that covers all the strings, thus preventing my having to enter all the strings separately. I *do* have a couple folders with many alternate strings entered, but the headers vary so much in unique content, that using a regular expression to accurately cover strings that will correspond to all and only those messages that I wish to filter is nigh unto impossible. This changes the scenario. It *isn't* true then, that all the accounts rules are applied at once. alt + f + f gives you a choice of any or all or the 4 sets available - in, out, read replied. This is basic stuff that I was ignoring at the outset, while putting the totality together. Yes, it does. You therefore have four filter sets, two equally functional, but the other two being restricted to filtering only replied or read messages. The logic to it is not as apparent as it cold be, but there *is* functionality there. Rules *can* be activating relatively independently, within the constraints of the range of choices given. I'm not sure of the advantages to this though, if any. snip Once again, there is a degree of freedom here, but I'm still not sure if this is the best way to get there (meaning that I'm not sure that TB's filtering processes are on the same level as some of the other things I know and like about TB, in relation to other options used by other email clients. Is there something unique about TB's filtering design that somehow jives particularly well with other positive aspects of TB. As its, it seems useful but subject to improvement. I don't see the advantage either. I think the present implementation is an attempt to make things clearer but they have, to me, done the opposite. :( The filter manager should, IMHO, be just like the address book in design. All filter rules are made from the same template. You may create filter sets as you create address groups. All rules gain their function as you tick away at options etc. to 'carve' it into shape. If you make the Inbox the source folder, the rule becomes an incoming filter rule and if the source folder is the Outbox, it becomes an outgoing filter rule. You should be able to make these rules executable upon various events, singly or in combination. Say for example: Toggle switches should be provided to make each rule be automatically applied upon either receiving mail, sending mail, opening or closing the source folder, or just to make it plain manual only. Message attributes should be offered as filter criteria on a per rule basis, such as, message read, unread, replied, message age, message priority etc. If flags and color coding are being supported in future versions then these
Re: Activating only certain filters
Hi there! On 28 Nov 99, at 18:26, Douglas Hinds wrote about "Re[2]: Activating only certain filt": 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 done to those messages dealing with his work), can't be fully implemented in TB. Okay, I'll try:-) Forgive me any inaccuracies you'll find in my descriptions of how TB's filtering works, I've never used it extensively. 1. Managing the Inbox. What essentially is done to my Inbox in Pegasus? On every _opening_, the messages get filtered from it to the \Unread\... hierarchy. This can be implemented with TB all right. But then, on _closing_ of Inbox, *some* messages get filtered to the other folders as well (such as delivery confirmations, messages from my ISP, etc. The crux of the matter here is that I usually just need to *see* them, but don't need to read these, at least on the regular basis). In TB this part cannot be implemented, therefore one would need to implement this part as "Read" type filters. But then I would *have* to open *each* of the delivery confirmations to get them filtered where I want them to go to, which isn't the thing I would like to do... In many cases, it's quite enough to *look* at the delivery conf in the folder listing to say, where it came from and what does this all mean. Following this idea, in Pegasus I have set up a filter that *automatically* marks all the delivery-type messages with pale gray colour in the Inbox, so that I could just skip these messages... TB's filtering won't allow me this, too. 2. Dealing with mailing lists traffic. Let me remind you, that in Pegasus the, say, TBUDL list traffic gets filtered from my Inbox to the Unread\TBUDL folder, where it's sorted _by_thread_ (actually, Pegasus doesn't do threading, it rather sorts by subject _and_ by date simultaneously, which only mimicks proper threading...). There I read this traffic, and *every time i close this folder* the read messages get filtered to Archive\TBUDL. If I were to implement this in TB, I would clearly be limited to using the "Read" filters. This would result in autofiltering *each* message that I haven't deleted upon reading to Archive\TBUDL right after I open the next message in the folder. This is not the thing I would want to happen. Consider the following: a. threading would become corrupted now and then; b. usually I read the TBUDL traffic this way: read the first message, then either delete it or keep for the future replying; go to the next message etc. Then when I have finished with reading, I start replying. But in TB this would mean that the messages I kept for replying are *already* in Archive\TBUDL:- (( Together with heaps of older messages, some of which have been replied to --- but some have been kept just 'coz they contain some valuable information. Then note please, that after I reply to some of TBUDL messages I _usually_ delete the message itself (since I knew how to answer the question contained in it, there is not much sense in keeping it anyway...). Therefore with TB I would end up deleting the messages from the Archive folder (which is set to be read only in Pegasus right now:-) To pevent the things that you usually put as "shit happens" out there:-))). So well, the consideration above leads me to conclusion that the filter moving messages from Unread\TBUDL to Archive\TBUDL would need to be "manual only". But then there exists another objective. Note that having "re-filtered" folder (say, Unread\TBUDL) I would end up applying *all* my "manual- only" filters to the Unread\TBUDL folder. Then this is a ground to erratic filtering. Just for example: suppose someone is my personal friend, suppose I've got a "manual only" filter somewhere on the system moving the messages from him to \Friends; suppose then that this person is a member of TBUDL. Then I'm likely to filter his TBUDL messages to the \Friends folder... An example showing the possibility of "reverse" behaviour can be easily constructed also. In short: the current behaviour of TB implies, that I *have* to have all my filtering systen in mind when working with the program. I need to consider all the time, *how* to re-filter, *how* to set up a new filter, etc., etc --- and to be beware of possible oddities:-). This seems to be counter-productive: in Pegasus, I just set up a filter, check how it works and then happily forget about its existence. Finally, in Pegasus *all* the filters that might be automatically applied to one specific folder are listed in one and the same place, which makes it simple to maintain them (that is, there exists a ruleset that is applied when the folder is opened --- and respectively a ruleset that's applied when the folder is closed), OTOH when I choose
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Paula all fellow TBUDL members, Monday, November 29, 1999, 12:13:40 AM, Paula wrote in response to my saying in relation to Alex's claim that the filtering system he's using in Pegasus is not possible using TB: I would also like anyone who believes that this *can* be done using TB (as Paula suggested), to elucidate on that as well: PF Why don't you give us some specifics about your needs and we can PF help construct some methods for you? At the moment, doing what Alex said he's doing in Pegasus would be a good place to start. I would prefer that because the logic he describes is very similar to what I want to and have begun to do; and he's already written it out, w/ a little reformatting added by me in my post. (If you don't mind). Best regards, Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
Hi there! On 29 Nov 99, at 13:32, Douglas Hinds wrote about "Re[2]: Activating only certain filt": Monday, November 29, 1999, 12:13:40 AM, Paula wrote in response to my saying in relation to Alex's claim that the filtering system he's using in Pegasus is not possible using TB: PF Why don't you give us some specifics about your needs and we can PF help construct some methods for you? At the moment, doing what Alex said he's doing in Pegasus would be a good place to start. I would prefer that because the logic he describes is very similar to what I want to and have begun to do; Nice to hear:-) Well, in a sense you can do all the same with TB, as I described already... But well, to be frank with you, in Pegasus it's done in a more simple and logical manner (naturally: FYI, Pegasus was the first e-mail program *ever* to support filtering...). So the "dry remainder" is something like: TB has better GUI (yes, I have to admit the fact), it has *much better* multilingual support (Pegasus hardly has any), but, and that's the crux of the matter *for me*, in Pegasus you can do *much more*. It doesn't mean that Pegasus is somehow bloated, it's hardly larger then TB (and Pegasus is NOT exe- packed; just tried to unpack TB beta 4, resulting exe file over 3 megs:-))) Procdump it was...); it simply offers you more ways of doing things. Some of them *I* use on a daily basis, hence, although I'd love to switch to TB (mainly due to its 8-bit support which's excellent), I don't think I will do so right now. More likely, after I get TB ver.2 and test it... he's already written it out, w/ a little reformatting added by me in my post. (If you don't mind). Of course I do not:-)) SY, Alex (St.Petersburg, Russia) -- Thought for the day: Work expands to exceed available time --- Parkinson's Law --- PGP public keys on keyservers: 0xA2194BF9 (RSA); 0x214135A2 (DH/DSS) fingerprints: F222 4AEF EC9F 5FA6 7515 910A 2429 9CB1 (RSA) A677 81C9 48CF 16D1 B589 9D33 E7D5 675F 2141 35A2 (DH/DSS) --- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
(long but substantial) Hello Paula all fellow TBUDL members, Finally, 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. PF Your confusion stems from being able to check "Manual only" on the PF filters page without having to check active. Is that "my" confusion or is that simply an option not explained in the TB help file? (Enter the word "manual" in the help index and all you'll get is manual connection to the internet). TBUDL *is* the TB help file. See anything below about active or manual only filtering? Sorting Office is implemented in The Bat! for auto-classification of incoming, outgoing, read and replied mail. Each of the above mentioned message flows can be sorted by folder, accordingly to its set of rules. Each rule is determined by its name, the source folder (for incoming mail it is always Inbox, for outgoing - Outbox and this cannot be changed), the target folder, sets of signal strings and defined actions. To create a new rule, open Account | Sorting Office/Filters dialogue, select the desired rule set (depending on what type of messages you want to classify) in the tree, and press New button. Related topics: Signal strings Filtering actions Using special syntax in signal strings Using The Bat! as a Maling List Server That's it. Check out the related topics if you like, but nothing's there on this point. PF I suppose this is done to allow users to activate and deactivate PF filters that they wish to apply manually. We are left to suppose, that's for sure. But nothing indicates the following: PF All filters must have the "Active" option checked to work. That is exactly the point. From there they can be either automatic or manual only. PF The "Manual filters only" option on the re-filter dialog is intended PF only to give you the option of applying only those filters that you have PF designated as "Manual only". Meaning that they don't get activated *until* *you* activate them. This problem could have been avoided simply by making the manual only option contingent on selecting active first, a very common button implementation (it would be grayed out until selecting active). Now, I would assume that have a active rule with manual only means that without selecting "manual only" it won't take effect when re-filtering, but this is not true - it will anyway. PF Right, thus the option on the re-filter dialog for "Manual filters PF only". Re-filtering without checking that option will invoke all active PF filters, regardless of whether or not the "Manual only" option is PF checked for the filter. The funky part is that the re-filtering menu asks for this, uselessly. PF So, what you have is: PF Active, Manual Only not checked - operate automatically when triggered PF by event OR operate on re-filtering if "Manual filters only" is not PF selected. Correct. PF Active, Manual Only checked - operate only on re-filtering. If "Manual PF filters only" is selected on re-filtering only these filters will be PF invoked. That's the whole ball of wax. PF Filters that are not marked "Active" are deactivated regardless of PF whether or not "Manual only" is checked. They are there to use if and when they're changed to active status. But none if this is explained anywhere. You yourself are just discovering these details. I don't find a consistent logic here. PF There is a logic there once you discover it. It doesn't seem PF counterintuitive to me that, for example, a filter has to be active to PF work. Right, there's a logic to it. The point is that it's a totally undocumented logic, which isn't very logical in itself when you consider that there's a universe of logical patterns that could be implemented for a given purpose. There is generally no one way of doing *anything*. But the logic chosen, whatever it is, should be specified. Call it what it is. Why be a party to an absence? TB needs a decent help file, but between TBUDL, fiddling around oneself and even resorting to the developers once in a while, the show will go on. I have been lumping Read Messages" and "Replied Messages" in with "Incoming Mail" conceptually, when as you point out, these are dealt with separately (not included when filtering "Incoming Mail"). PF This was an error on my part, going back to earlier versions of TB. PF Incoming Mail filters do, in fact, operate on _all_ messages in the PF InBox when using re-filtering. Sorry to add to the confusion. Your intentions were good. And that's what I mean about logic. There are a lot of ways to look at anything. When developing anything (software or otherwise) the important thing is to analyze the situation (determine options), set priorities, chart the most all inclusive and elegant course you can and then stick to it. But you've got to explain it, or some one
Re: Activating only certain filters
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 filters are only for unread messages, and read filters are only for read messages, etc.? Isn't there a simple solution to this? I did not even realize there was a difference between the incoming, read and replied filters. I have the same query. All of my filters are either created in the Incoming filter set or Outgoing filter set. If I wish to create a folder for a particular sender for whom I have a lot of messages in my inbox, I create a filter for that sender, in my incoming filter set. 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 replied to, get filtered as I want them to. This therefore substantiates Januk's query that the Incoming filter set will work on any type of message when run manually with the folder re-filter option provided you select the type of messages you wish to be filtered. My interpretation is that the Incoming filter set is limited not in the types of messages it will filer but where it will act. It will work only on the Inbox. -- * Ali Martin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Simon says: don't be so suggestible. *** Using The Bat! v1.38 Beta/4 [-] Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6) -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
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 replied to, get filtered as I want them to. This therefore substantiates Januk's query that the Incoming filter set will work on any type of message when run manually with the folder re-filter option provided you select the type of messages you wish to be filtered. I just now created an incoming filter for a sender who's messages are normally filtered to a non-specific folder but not the Inbox. I then re-filtered this folder using the Incoming filter set *without* selecting read or unread message filters and the messages were filtered to the new folder that I created, even though none of them were unread and none were in the Inbox. Interesting. I remembered this not working in the past but it now works. My interpretation is that the Incoming filter set is limited not in the types of messages it will filer but where it will act. It will work only on the Inbox. I guess that I should ditch this statement and replace it with: 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. -- * Ali Martin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Diplomacy - the art of letting someone have your way. *** Using The Bat! v1.38 Beta/4 [-] Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6) -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
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 it for something else... 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 the folder until you were done reading all messages, you could set the rule to manual and re-filter. The only problem is filtering *any* folder, not only Inbox, on it's _opening_:-) I'm using this approach now and then, you see:-) Note, that most of the time I would like to filter *both* read and unread messages in such a situation, hence... with TB it comes to be a bit tricky... Okay, anyhow I'll bet we have to look at the long-expected ver.2 prior to proceed with this interesting discussion:-)) BTW, colour filtering is another option that i miss in the current TB... SY, Alex (St.Petersburg, Russia) -- Thought for the day: Assumption is the mother of all screwups --- PGP public keys on keyservers: 0xA2194BF9 (RSA); 0x214135A2 (DH/DSS) fingerprints: F222 4AEF EC9F 5FA6 7515 910A 2429 9CB1 (RSA) A677 81C9 48CF 16D1 B589 9D33 E7D5 675F 2141 35A2 (DH/DSS) --- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
(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 at once, as seems to be
the case at present.
PF The two options - active and manual only - are not related in the way
PF implied here.
PF A rule can be active or not.
PF An active rule can be manual only or not (automatic).
My understanding then regarding rules (the filter itself is a rule
linked to an account) is:
A rule can be either:
1).- "active";
2).- "manual only";
3).- "active" AND "manual only"; or
4).- NEITHER "active" nor "manual only"
An "active" rule that is *not* "manual only", takes effect
automatically; and
A "manual only" rule takes effect only on selecting "Folder /
Re-filter", the "rule set to apply", and then manual only.
An "active" rule that is *also* "manual only", takes effect only on
selecting "Folder / Re-filter" and the "rule set to apply" with or
without selecting "manual only";
That is what I concluded, but it turns out that this is not so.
On re-filtering (that is, filtering manually rather than actively),
after selecting for Read Mail (for instance), "Manual filters
only" can be selected or not, whereas when creating a filter itself,
it can be either active, manual only, both or neither. What then,
would neither do? Would it still filter (after all it *is* a rule).
I tried it. A rule that is NEITHER "active" nor "manual only" does
nothing. It is an adornment, an ornament.
I changed the same rule to manual only (to double check the
effectiveness of my strings. It still does nothing. I change strings
and other variables, i.e w/ different combinations of rule set ("read"
although 2 of the four in this folder were replied to), used just one
universal string, put the action (move the messages) in the copy to:
selection also. But no message is filtered.
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.
Now, I would assume that have a active rule with manual only means
that without selecting "manual only" it won't take effect when
re-filtering, but this is not true - it will anyway.
I don't find a consistent logic here. I see rules that don't do
anything, and rules that shouldn't work at certain times that
none-the-less do. But I am not going to change to Pegasus, I am going
to get to the bottom of this, and work with this group *and* the
developers, if needed (if these things really do show the lack of a
consistent and comprehensive logic structure, rather than one I
haven't yet discovered).
This leads me to conclude that the programming focus for manual (on
demand, user controlled) filtering should be shifted to the filter
instead of the folder, with an activate "all filters" option for those
who want it done as it is presently.
PF The focus of TB's filtering is ostensibly on the status of the message,
PF not the folder.
You are right. I had been focusing *only* on the distinction between
Incoming Mail and Outgoing Mail,in relation to filters. I have simply
been ignoring the difference between "Read Messages" and "Replied
Messages" on the one hand, and unread messages in the Inbox on the
other.
I have been lumping Read Messages" and "Replied Messages" in with
"Incoming Mail" conceptually, when as you point out, these are dealt
with separately (not included when filtering "Incoming Mail").
I *was* thinking in terms of folders, because you manually filter on a
given folder and activate your filters from the folder menu, in
relation to the folder currently selected in the folder pane, and the
names of the rules I made relate to the folders I created on the
destination end. But that (BT!) was me, not TB!. (feeble joke).
And there are further distinctions.
[The following was written *before* the above].
Also - According to TB!'s "help" file, when two locations are
selected for a given string, *both* conditions must be satisfied, when
I assumed that I was filtering for *either* condition. This explains
why some filters weren't functioning.
Not only that, I wasn't taking into account the alternatives, actions
and options involved. One of the options permits the use of "regular
expressions", but I find nothing in the help file that refers directly
to that, although there *is* something on "Special syntax", "used for
signal strings", which I assume is what that refers to.
PF So, we have rules that apply to Incoming Mail, Outgoing
PF Mail, Read Messages, and Replied Messages.
PF But, what Incoming Mail means is unread messages in the Inbox.
*That's* what I was missing.
PF When you create an Incoming Mail rule, the messages are filtered
PF from the InBox, not directly from the server.
Messages already download with TB.
PF
Re: Activating only certain filters
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 Incoming Mail filter did operate only on unread messages, but it's obviously been changed. Checking the Read Messages rule sets option in the re-filter dialogue has nothing to do with it, however. -- Paula Ford The Bat! 1.36 (reg) Windows 95 4.0 Build 950 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
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 mail, but, AFAIK, not automatically on already read mail. You have to do re-filter operations for them to work on read mail. A "manual only" rule takes effect only on selecting "Folder / Re-filter", the "rule set to apply", and then manual only. No. Manual only rules will always take effect during re-filter operations. The active only filters will work as well in this setting. The filters with 'manual only' checked will *not* work automatically on incoming mail. You have to do a re-filter operation to get them to work. An "active" rule that is *also* "manual only", takes effect only on selecting "Folder / Re-filter" and the "rule set to apply" with or without selecting "manual only"; That is what I concluded, but it turns out that this is not so. On re-filtering (that is, filtering manually rather than actively), Both automatic and manual filtering are subsets of active filtering and I guess this is where you're difficulty lies. IOW, if the filter rule is active, it is functional. If it's not active, it will neither run automatically on incoming mail nor will it run when you do a re-filter operation on a folder. after selecting for Read Mail (for instance), "Manual filters only" can be selected or not, whereas when creating a filter itself, it can be either active, manual only, both or neither. What then, would neither do? Would it still filter (after all it *is* a rule). The difference with having only 'active' checked and 'active' and 'manual only' checked concerns incoming mail only. It has nothing to do with a re-filter operation. A re-filter operation reruns the filter rules that are usually run on incoming mail automatically, as well the rules that are reserved to be run manually. If during the re-filter operation, you specify that only 'manual only' filters are run then the automatic filters for incoming mail will not be rerun. I tried it. A rule that is NEITHER "active" nor "manual only" does nothing. It is an adornment, an ornament. snip 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. Exactly. The 'active' switch is what makes the filter functional or switches the filter on or off. Now, I would assume that have a active rule with manual only means that without selecting "manual only" it won't take effect when re-filtering, but this is not true - it will anyway. Selecting 'manual only' during a re-filter operation will prevent the automatic incoming mail filters from running. This switch has no effect on whether or not manual filters are run and I agree with this system. Aren't you doing a manual operation when re-filtering? So isn't this when manual filters should be run? :) I don't find a consistent logic here. I see rules that don't do anything, and rules that shouldn't work at certain times that none-the-less do. 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 filter that will work on incoming mail and are run on any new mail received. These filters are also run during re-filter operations carried out on *any* folder provided the 'manual only' option is *not* checked. c) An incoming filter with both the 'active' and 'manual only' options checked will only be run during manual filtering operations, namely, folder re-filtering exercises. The 'manual only' toggle switch in the folder re-filtering process, doesn't affect the running of manual filters but, in fact, affects the running of the 'automatic' filter rules. Because of this, the only way to prevent a 'manual only' filter from running during a re-filter operation is to uncheck the 'manual only' option in each rules properties. It would seem to me that you need functionality that Alexander Kiselev made reference to and that is 'filter sets' support. In The Bats! terminology, you seem to need the ability to create *multiple* incoming filter sets made up of rules to be run 'manual only' so that you may select which set you need to run at a particular time. I say this because you are sounding as if you need only particular 'manual only' filters to run during each re-filter operation instead of all of them at the same time. But I am not going to change to Pegasus, I am going to get to the bottom of this, and work with this group *and* the developers, if needed (if these things really do show the lack of a consistent and comprehensive logic structure, rather than one I haven't yet
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
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 the filtering done to those messages dealing with his work), can't be fully implemented in TB. I would also like anyone who believes that this *can* be done using TB (as Paula suggested), to elucidate on that as well: AVK Pegasus, for example, lets you: AVK 1. Create almost any type of filter AVK 2. Save any number of "individual" filters as a "filter set" AVK 3. To *manually* apply any filter set to any folder, just choose the AVKfilter set you need from the list of filter sets available on the AVKsystem) AVK 4. To "attach" any filter set to any folder as either an "opening AVKfilter set" (which means that the folder will be filtered with this AVKset whenever this folder is opened) or a "closing filter set" AVK(respectively, will be applied when this folder is closed), OR both AVK(then you can attach different filter sets as "opening" and AVK"closing" ones). AVK 5. To create "Copies to self" filters, that will trigger when the copy AVKof just sent message is created in the "Sent" folder. AVK This functionality supersedes the one currently offered by The Bat!: ... AVK I believe that the approach to filtering implemented by Pegasus AVK author is more flexible. I needn't the "read filters" for AVK example, *i* want to rather be able to create a "general- type" AVK filter that will trigger on the messages that *have been read*. AVK In Pegasus, I filter all the incoming messages in the Inbox AVK (for example, TB lists traffic goes to Unread\TBUDL and AVK Unread\TBBETA respectively), thus the Inbox is left with AVK something about 20--30 messages private messages directed to me AVK that wouldn't fall into any existing category AND receipt/reading AVK confirmations (the latter get moved to the "\Delivery confs" AVK every time Inbox is closed, where they are kept for 5 days then AVK deleted). AVK Then when I have time to read the lists traffic, I go to Unread\TBUDL AVK (for example) and read-delete-read the messages in it. Those messages AVK I want to keep I just don't delete: after I close the TBUDL folder, all AVK the read messages in it get automatically moved to "Archive\Mailing AVK Lists\TBUDL", where they are kept forever. AVK With the messages dealing with my work the idea applied is somewhat AVK more complex: AVK From Inbox these messages get auto-filtered to Unread\Work\YYY AVK depending on the sender, AVK Then upon reading they get moved to "Work\YYY", where they are AVK kept for a month AVK and then moved finally to Archive\Work\YYY. AVK This filtering structure can be partially mimicked with TB, but AVK not in its entirety. This is exactly what I'd appreciate hearing in greater depth, as well as any dissenting opinions. ... AVK SY, Alex AVK (St.Petersburg, Russia) Thanks in advance, Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[4]: Activating only certain filters
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 subdirectories. Are you sure this is true? Or am I Douglas inferring something you did not mean to imply? t I never use the ticker as it takes up my desk space and is in the t way. It would be useful if I was parmanently on the internet to be t alarmed what just came in. 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. However, it may imply that since this not an area you are operating in, you're not in a good position to provide the answer to that one, so I probably shouldn't insist but rather try it myself. But I can't, without going through the properties of all folders and making sure that just the trial account's inbox is ticker deactivated and a ticker activated sub-folder has an unread message or two, and I can't do that now, there's too many. So for the time being, I will assume that since each folder gives the ticker option, the ticker will show unread messages in any folder programmed to use it, whether the parent folder's ticker is activated or not. t ALL my mail boxes are first level mail boxes and I filter any list t stuff to their own box. OK t You can see after mail is in which boxes have new mail and in general t what I have left in my inbox is what doesnt get hit by my filters and t some left over spam. I'm getting more than I can look at and what you describe is part of what I need and have begun to do. t Anyway, having mail split up properly, even if you may want to dump t it makes life a lot easier as I get maybe 200-300 emails per day. Right. Douglas I'd like to see the ability to set the ticker for given time Douglas frame, or to select a "today's mail only" or "last X day's Douglas mail only" option. t ... I do not use it as I am quicker looking at my boxes then t reading that ticker running around and telling me I have 200 boxes. t Its a lot quicker to have mail in clear identifiably split t mailboxes , see which ones are changed and as mentioned above, all t of mine are first level so if I look at an account I see directly t what has new mail. t I might use the ticker if it had less garbage to show me, as its t now its useless to me. It needs a Ticker Manager that let's you check set the ticker setting for each folder without having to go to the properties settings of each, and greater selectivity, or filtering. As is, it either shows or it doesn't show unread messages in a folder that selected for it and that's all. Best regards, Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
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 the folder until you were done reading all messages, you could set the rule to manual and re-filter. The only problem is filtering *any* folder, not only Inbox, on it's _opening_:-) I'm using this approach now and then, you see:-) Yes, Pegasus allows you to create filter sets which may be assigned on a per folder basis and be made to be applied when the folder either is opened or closed. Each folder may then have two separate sets of filters assigned to it, ie, one to be run on opening and one to be run on closing the folder. That's some handy functionality there that, personally, I don't need, but Douglas seems to need this. Note, that most of the time I would like to filter *both* read and unread messages in such a situation, hence... with TB it comes to be a bit tricky... It may be done with The Bat!, but only manually. Okay, anyhow I'll bet we have to look at the long-expected ver.2 prior to proceed with this interesting discussion:-)) :) -- * Ali Martin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Upgrade: take old bugs out, put new ones in. *** Using The Bat! v1.38 Beta/4 [-] Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6) -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
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 done to those messages dealing with his work), can't be fully implemented in TB. I would also like anyone who believes that this *can* be done using TB (as Paula suggested), to elucidate on that as well: snip AVK This filtering structure can be partially mimicked with TB, but AVK not in its entirety. This is exactly what I'd appreciate hearing in greater depth, as well as any dissenting opinions. ... The filtering abilities that AVK describes are based on Pegasus's abilities to apply filter sets automatically on a perfolder basis and this automatic filtering may be set to be activated when the folder is either opened or closed. TB! doesn't support this sort of filtering functionality at present. At present, I've managed to squeeze out the possibility of two filter sets using the incoming and outgoing filter sets and even then, they'd have to be applied manually. -- * Ali Martin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. *** Using The Bat! v1.38 Beta/4 [-] Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6) -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
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 they operate manually on all messages in the InBox when invoked manually, not just "incoming message flows" as the Help describes them. filter that will work on incoming mail and are run on any new mail received. These filters are also run during re-filter operations carried out on *any* folder provided the 'manual only' option is *not* checked. Hmmm??? If you click on a folder other than the InBox, then re-filter the Incoming Mail filters are invoked only if you check the Incoming Mail option for re-filtering - ummm - I think! Outgoing and Incoming message filter rules, set to run automatically, will only work *automatically* on the Inbox and Outbox respectively. However, these filter rules will work on any folder when a re-filter operation is done. OK, this _is_ confusing. When you create an Incoming Mail filter, the source folder has to be specified as the InBox. Similarly, with Outgoing Mail filters. But, on re-filtering TB is ignoring the source folder designation. So, when you are re-filtering the categories are nothing more than some arbitrary groupings of rulesets. For example, I can create an "Outgoing Mail" filter or an identical "Incoming Mail" filter and either will work manually. They will also operate on Read messages and Replied messages. I think the filtering approach of TB! is consistent, once you understand it. :) I thought so too, but then my filters are straigthforward and it turns out that I didn't fully understand what was going on with the re-filtering. As it is, I couldn't disagree more. It needs to be re-thought from the ground up, IMO. There are much better ways to organize filtering that are much clearer to the user and more flexible. Put it this way, once an unread message gets filtered out of the inbox to another folder, the only way to re-filter that message to another folder is to run a manual re-filter operation. Automatic filtering of unread messages, only occurs in the Inbox. Yes, but Unread messages can be automatically filtered when Read or Replied to. However, the Read Messages filters continues to work only on messages that are automatically marked Read by TB based on the setting in the account properties, at least in every permutation I've tried. A continuing annoyance. -- Paula Ford The Bat! 1.36 (reg) Windows 95 4.0 Build 950 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
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-filter the Incoming Mail filters are invoked only if you check the Incoming Mail option for re-filtering - ummm - I think! Yes, that's right as well. :) Outgoing and Incoming message filter rules, set to run automatically, will only work *automatically* on the Inbox and Outbox respectively. However, these filter rules will work on any folder when a re-filter operation is done. OK, this _is_ confusing. When you create an Incoming Mail filter, the source folder has to be specified as the InBox. Similarly, with Outgoing Mail filters. But, on re-filtering TB is ignoring the source folder designation. So, when you are re-filtering the categories are nothing more than some arbitrary groupings of rulesets. For example, I can create an "Outgoing Mail" filter or an identical "Incoming Mail" filter and either will work manually. They will also operate on Read messages and Replied messages. Exactly. I think the filtering approach of TB! is consistent, once you understand it. :) I thought so too, but then my filters are straigthforward and it turns out that I didn't fully understand what was going on with the re-filtering. As it is, I couldn't disagree more. It needs to be re-thought from the ground up, IMO. There are much better ways to organize filtering that are much clearer to the user and more flexible. I agree here as well. The functionality is consistent, but admittedly, not clearly presented. Dispelling of the so called Incoming and Outgoing filter sets nomenclature and simply using generic filter sets, which you may name as you like, would be better. Whenever you're defining filter rules, designating that the rule be applied to inbox or outbox messages may then be done at will. These filters will then work as incoming and outgoing filters respectively. The same generic filters may be made to filter unread, read and replied messages through checkable options in the filter rule options. Being able to create filters sets (as you are able to create address groups in the address books) would be better, clearer and more functional. -- * Ali Martin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** "Stupid" is a boundless concept. *** Using The Bat! v1.38 Beta/4 [-] Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6) -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
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 appeared in the ticker as long as the option was checked in the subfolders properties. It didn't matter whether or not the InBox or the parent folder have the option enabled. It needs a Ticker Manager that let's you check set the ticker setting for each folder without having to go to the properties settings of each, and greater selectivity, or filtering. As is, it either shows or it doesn't show unread messages in a folder that selected for it and that's all. I think most things can be accomplished just using folders and filterings. I think what people would like is something that shows only new messages. This seems to me to be somewhat difficult to do when the program would have to distinguish between unread messages based on what's been mostly recently downloaded. How long does a new message remain "new"? Should a message be displayed only once in the ticker? -- Paula Ford The Bat! 1.36 (reg) Windows 95 4.0 Build 950 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
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: snip This is exactly what I'd appreciate hearing in greater depth, as well as any dissenting opinions. Dissenting opinions? :) Why don't you give us some specifics about your needs and we can help construct some methods for you? -- Paula Ford The Bat! 1.36 (reg) Windows 95 4.0 Build 950 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
Hi there! On 26 Nov 99, at 14:48, Paula Ford wrote about "Re: Activating only certain filters": The focus of TB's filtering is ostensibly on the status of the message, not the folder. So, we have rules that apply to Incoming Mail, Outgoing Mail, Read Messages, and Replied Messages. But, what Incoming Mail means is unread messages in the Inbox. When you create an Incoming Mail rule, the messages are filtered from the InBox, not directly from the server. Outgoing Mail rules are similar. Only the Read Messages and Replied Messages rules can be made specific to a folder by identifying the folder When I first switched to TB, I found this to be an awkward and limiting construct. My previous mailer operated more along the lines that I think you're looking for. The same with me:-) Pegasus, for example, lets you: 1. Create almost any type of filter 2. Save any number of "individual" filters as a "filter set" 3. To *manually* apply _any_ filter set to _any_ folder (Peg just lets you choose the filter set you need from the list of filter sets available on the system) 4. To "attach" _any_ filter set to _any_ folder as either an "opening filter set" (which means that the folder will be filtered with this set whenever this folder is opened) or a "closing filter set" (respectively, will be applied when this folder is closed), OR both (then you can attach different filter sets as "opening" and "closing" ones). 5. To create "Copies to self" filters, that will trigger when the copy of just sent message is created in the "Sent" folder. Needless to say that this functionality supercedes the one currently offered by The Bat!:-( BTW, it's one of my main reasons to use Pegasus, not TB, currently... The rule itself is the first focus rather than the status of the messages, which makes the filtering more flexible than in TB, and the user can invoke any rule manually at any time by selecting it from a list of the rules. I suppose the same could be achieved in TB by creating a procedure that would pop up a list of the rules and allow the user to select one or more to be run. However, this would still be limited by the underlying logic, for example, unread messages would still only be able to be filtered from the InBox. Therefore I believe that the approach to filtering implemented by Pegasus author is more flexible. I needn't the "read filters" for example, *i* want to rather be able to create a "general- type" filter that will trigger on the messages that *heve been read*. Activating filters selectively on demand may not be much different than selecting manually for column (and I'm told the option of inserting an "account" column may be offered in v. 2) or manually doing a search using a given set of criteria and then moving the files (which is what I have to do now). It *would* be faster though. Yes, it would. I take it that what you want to do is review most new mail for something of particular interest before moving unread messages to folders that might contain alot of other unread messages. I'm assuming this from your 2700+ unread messages. :) In Pegasus, I'm following yet another idea. I filter all the incoming messages in the Inbox (for example, TB lists traffic goes to Unread\TBUDL and Unread\TBBETA respectively), thus the Inbox is left with something about 20--30 messages _private_ messages directed to me that wouldn't fall into any existing category AND receipt/reading confirmations (the latter get moved to the "\Delivery confs" every time Inbox is closed, where they are kept for 5 days then deleted). Then when I have time to read the lists traffic, I goto Unread\TBUDL (for example) and read-delete-read the messages in it. Those messages I wanna keep I just don't delete: after I close the TBUDL folder, all the read messages in it get automatically moved to "Archive\Mailing Lists\TBUDL", where they are kept forever. With the messages dealing with my work the idea applied is even somewhat more complex: from Inbox these messages get auto-filtered to Unread\Work\YYY depending on the sender, then upon reading they get moved to "Work\YYY", where they are kept for a month and then moved finally to Archive\Work\YYY. 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 it for something else... [] SY, Alex (St.Petersburg, Russia) -- Thought for the day: Walk through doors, don't crawl through Windows. --- PGP public keys on keyservers: 0xA2194BF9 (RSA); 0x214135A2 (DH/DSS) fingerprints: F222 4AEF EC9F 5FA6 7515 910A 2429 9CB1 (RSA) A677 81C9 48CF 16D1 B589 9D33 E7D5 675F 2141 35A2 (DH/DSS) --- -- ---
Re[3]: Activating only certain filters
Sunday, November 28, 1999 Hello Douglas, Friday, Friday, November 26, 1999, you wrote: (snip) Douglas I infer from this that by turning off the ticker to the main accounts Douglas inbox, no ticker will be available for any of that account's Douglas subdirectories. Are you sure this is true? Or am I inferring something Douglas you did not mean to imply? I never use the ticker as it takes up my desk space and is in the way. It would be useful if I was parmanently on the internet to be alarmed what just came in. ALL my mail boxes are first level mail boxes and I filter any list stuff to their own box. You can see after mail is in which boxes have new mail and in general what I have left in my inbox is what doesnt get hit by my filters and some left over spam. Anyway, having mail split up properly, even if you may want to dump it makes life a lot easier as I get maybe 200-300 emails per day. Douglas Perhaps you have another reason for suggesting this. Perhaps you Douglas assume my main inbox needs a ticker. However - the amount of mail Douglas coming in precludes that, until such time as the ticker can be made Douglas more programmable, in a future version of TB!. j additionally, have a filter (automatic) that will move all mail j meeting certain criteria to your inbox, leaving the rest in the j non-ticker folder. Perhaps TB could impliment a filter feature that j would allow the filter to detect whether or not they were in your j address book - then you could filter all mail from your friends to j go to your inbox, all else to your collective folder. Douglas That's a good idea *but* - it's not always possible to foresee either Douglas what will arrive, or what will be important to me (require directing Douglas to a special folder for follow up). That's why I need to see it first, Douglas although certain issue related replies that I am awaiting could be Douglas filtered to a given tickered folder. Douglas The mail I get is not so much related to given people, and and the Douglas things I don't want to miss ( and therefore will want separated) are Douglas not always predictable. Douglas A lot of it is from lists, some of which are interactive like TUBDL Douglas and the content can vary considerably. (The ones that are not Douglas interactive are much more predictable and can be automatically Douglas filtered more easily. Douglas But there is so much of this now that it's hard to spot the rest of Douglas what I get, so the bulk of it is what I need to filter, preferably Douglas after having seen it all together. Then, selectively filtering would Douglas let me go over what's left more carefully. Douglas The alternative would be to have mail from all accounts actively Douglas filtered to separate folders in one account and sort through them from Douglas there. If filtering from the main inbox is active, this means that there's either enough of it to make it worth the effort to check the subdirectory separately (as I do for all TBUDL mail, which goes directly to it's own folder and is too much to use the ticker on), or that it's something I don't need to see in a timely way). j snip j I am not entirely clear on what you are saying, here... j are you referring to having a filter set to trigger upon j the box reaching so many messages? Douglas No. I mean that there's enough mail and the subject matter of TBUDL is Douglas of sufficient interest to me that I *will* check the incoming TUBDL Douglas mail in it's separate, actively filtered folder, while other Douglas newsletter type things can be left lie in *their* filtered folders for Douglas a time I'm less busy. j If not... it's still a good idea - I'd like to see it implimented! j (if it's not already, I don't think it is...) Quota-activated j filters would be useful. Douglas That's probably true (although I can't come up with a scenario in Douglas which I'd need it at the moment). A ticker would be useful to the degree it could be activated and deactivated easily, and would be more useful if programmable for only new messages, within a given time frame j Putting a minimize button on it and a launch button in j the client (as well as the icon context menu) would be j easy enough to implement, I am sure - as for j programmable? Douglas That means selective - particularly in terms of time frame. As is, all Douglas unopened mail goes into it, and I have lots of mail I'm *never going Douglas to read, precluding the use of the ticker. (And other heavy email Douglas users on this list have told me of list that they don't use the ticker Douglas either). So - I'd like to see the ability to set it for given time Douglas frame, or to select a "today's mail only" or "last X day's mail only" Douglas option. As far as I am concerned I donot use it as I am quicker looking at my boxes then reading that ticker running around and telling me I have 200 boxes. Its a lot quicker to have mail in clear identifiably split
Re: Activating only certain filters
On Saturday, November 27, 1999, Alexander V. Kiselev wrote: 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 it for something else... 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 the folder until you were done reading all messages, you could set the rule to manual and re-filter. Although when I first got TB I found the filtering oddly constructed, I can't think of anything now that I need to do that I can't. Let's take Douglas, for example. I can't say that I understand exactly what it is he is trying to do, but let's make some assumptions. He gets alot of email, much of it from mailing lists. He wants to review most, but not all of his new mail in the InBox before it is filtered. So, first, he creates rules for Incoming Mail and sets them to automatic (leaving manual only unchecked). Next, if he wants to filter unread messages, he creates Incoming Mail rules, then sets them to manual only. If he wants to filter read messages, he creates Read Messages rules and sets them to manual. That will pretty much do it, except I think what Douglas wants to do is to filter messages from his InBox incrementally for which TB would have to allow users to invoke filters from a list of all filters. For the most part, though, TB's filtering is fine. -- Paula Ford The Bat! 1.36 (reg) Windows 95 4.0 Build 950 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hi, I'm a bit confused about this whole thread here. I'll admit that I'm pretty new to The Bat!, but I've been trying to set up my parents on e-mail. My Dad is slowly trying to build up his functionality, so we've been exploring the filters. Every time we add a new filter, we add either Incoming filters or Outgoing filters, then we re-filter his Inbox or Sent folders respectively. 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 filters are only for unread messages, and read filters are only for read messages, etc.? Isn't there a simple solution to this? I did not even realize there was a difference between the incoming, read and replied filters. Thanks for writing, Januk Aggarwal [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Saturday, November 27, 1999, 12:04:48 PM, Paula Ford wrote: On Saturday, November 27, 1999, Alexander V. Kiselev wrote: 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 it for something else... 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 the folder until you were done reading all messages, you could set the rule to manual and re-filter. Although when I first got TB I found the filtering oddly constructed, I can't think of anything now that I need to do that I can't. Let's take Douglas, for example. I can't say that I understand exactly what it is he is trying to do, but let's make some assumptions. He gets alot of email, much of it from mailing lists. He wants to review most, but not all of his new mail in the InBox before it is filtered. So, first, he creates rules for Incoming Mail and sets them to automatic (leaving manual only unchecked). Next, if he wants to filter unread messages, he creates Incoming Mail rules, then sets them to manual only. If he wants to filter read messages, he creates Read Messages rules and sets them to manual. That will pretty much do it, except I think what Douglas wants to do is to filter messages from his InBox incrementally for which TB would have to allow users to invoke filters from a list of all filters. For the most part, though, TB's filtering is fine. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: Activating only certain filters
Hello Ali all fellow TBUDL members, Thursday, November 25, 1999, 7:54:22 PM, Ali wrote in response to my saying more or less: In any case, I see a need for activating a given filter without having to activate all filters for a given folder at once, as seems to be the case at present. AM I don't see how you could avoid doing this manually, i.e., going AM through the filters and making them manual only or neither active nor AM manual only, as you need to. Thanks Ali. This comment raises the question of *what* is a neither "manual only" nor "active filter"? Simply a third option, or rather, an option in the non-active category to distinguish it from manual only filter? If so, this suggests that only two options are available for non-active filters, coded as "manual only" and neither "manual only" nor "active". This leads me to conclude that the programming focus for manual (on demand, user controlled) filtering should be shifted to the filter instead of the folder, with an activate "all filters" option for those who want it done as it is presently. Activating filters selectively on demand may not be much different than selecting manually for column (and I'm told the option of inserting an "account" column may be offered in v. 2) or manually doing a search using a given set of criteria and then moving the files (which is what I have to do now). It *would* be faster though. And how to deal with parked items would have to be dealt with separately - a separate rule could be invoked. Best regards, Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Activating only certain filters
This may be a little wordier than most posts, but I will try to state the issue and get to the point: What I want to do with TB! and why I want do it, and I would appreciate other TB! users comments regarding filtering and the way I use (and want to use) e-mail. First of all I'd like to compare the concept I have of managing email with that of other users in similar situations. Maybe someone has an alternative or more efficient concept, in relation to my needs. My idea is this: 1).- I get more email than I want, too much to use ticker, since sometimes (particularly when I'm really busy) much of it is never opened. 2).- However, I need to see it all when it comes in, and not have to look around for it. Since there are multiple accounts, mail from all of them should probably be actively filtered to ONE inbox (not yet done), and then either actively or manually filtered to subdirectories. If filtering from the main inbox is active, this means that there's either enough of it to make it worth the effort to check the subdirectory separately (as I do for all TBUDL mail, which goes directly to it's own folder and is too much to use the ticker on), or that it's something I don't need to see in a timely way). A ticker would be useful to the degree it could be activated and deactivated easily, and would be more useful if programmable for only new messages, within a given time frame. If filtering was manual, I could see it all as it came in and activate the filter at the point the I had either seen that mail or that there was so much of it that it made the inbox very slow to load or was just in the way. [Jesus Christ. While I'm typing this, somehow a set of keystrokes inadvertently triggered the ticker on. I swear. (Can that thing know when it's being talked about)? And my system *freezes* and the graphics from all my open window become garbled, while the thing tries to come on to finally tell me that there are 2734 pieces of new mail waiting to be read]. So: I want to see almost all of it when it comes in and manually move certain items to special folders, before filtering manually. In isolated cases it may be feasible to filter directly (actively) to a given folder and have that folder's ticker on, making sure the bulk folders tickers are off. (I just checked the main inbox and it's ticker is *not* activated). What I really want is to activate a given filter at whatever point I need or want to do that, and *not* have to filter the whole main inbox with all filters at once. I may just want to filter on items from certain sources, while leaving the rest for the time being. I understand that filters can be active, manual only or both according the options given, but I *can't* say I understand how a filter can be both manual only *and* active + manual only, so someone may want to clarify that. As far as I can see, to filter manually, you choose "re-filter" from the folder menu and that does them *all* for that folder. In any case, I see a need for activating a given filter without having to activate a number of them all at once, as seem to be the case at present. I am assuming that there is no way to do that - but that is the reason for this post: To make sure that there isn't a way and if there is, to determine how to do that. Also, if this can't be done, to determine if others share my point of view regarding the need for this, and lastly, to check my general concept of email use against that of others. Sorry for any redundancies, but I try to make sure I've said what I meant to say. Thanks in advance for any replies. Douglas Hinds -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
Douglas Hinds wrote: In any case, I see a need for activating a given filter without having to activate a number of them all at once, as seem to be the case at present. I am assuming that there is no way to do that - but that is the reason for this post: To make sure that there isn't a way and if there is, to determine how to do that. I don't see how you could avoid doing this manually, i.e., going through the filters and making them manual only or neither active nor manual only, as you need to. -- * Ali Martin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Skiier: Someone who pays an arm and a leg to break them. *** Using The Bat! v1.38 Beta/4 [-] Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6) -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Activating only certain filters
on Thursday, November 25, 1999 Douglas Hinds wrote... 2).- However, I need to see it all when it comes in, and not have to look around for it. Since there are multiple accounts, mail from all of them should probably be actively filtered to ONE inbox (not yet done), and then either actively or manually filtered to subdirectories. Just an idea, trying to build upon what you are saying ~ Alright, say you do filter everything from all accounts to one folder ~ have them filter to a folder that does not appear on the ticker (so, not your main inbox) - additionally, have a filter (automatic) that will move all mail meeting certain criteria to your inbox, leaving the rest in the non-ticker folder. Perhaps TB could impliment a filter feature that would allow the filter to detect whether or not they were in your address book - then you could filter all mail from your friends to go to your inbox, all else to your collective folder. If filtering from the main inbox is active, this means that there's either enough of it to make it worth the effort to check the subdirectory separately (as I do for all TBUDL mail, which goes directly to it's own folder and is too much to use the ticker on), or that it's something I don't need to see in a timely way). snip I am not entirely clear on what you are saying, here... are you referring to having a filter set to trigger upon the box reaching so many messages? If not... it's still a good idea - I'd like to see it implimented! (if it's not already, I don't think it is...) Quota-activated filters would be useful. A ticker would be useful to the degree it could be activated and deactivated easily, and would be more useful if programmable for only new messages, within a given time frame Putting a minimize button on it and a launch button in the client (as well as the icon context menu) would be easy enough to implement, I am sure - as for programmable? The ticker certainly could use more programmability. I would like to see it have it's own filtering, rather than being folder dependent, be filter dependent. That, in itself may help you... If filtering was manual, I could see it all as it came in and activate the filter at the point the I had either seen that mail or that there was so much of it that it made the inbox very slow to load or was just in the way. What if... we could create custom keyboard shortcuts that would trigger a specific filter? That may be useful... or, a menu in the client (that can be toggled on/off) that would be labeled "filters" - from whence you could select a filter to trigger? I hope I wasn't entirely off on your criteria, here... (don't want to look like a total fool during my first week back at the UDL!) joshua http://jarday.com - 1.38 Beta/4 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
