Hello Roelof, This is what you said on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:50:31 +0200 your time:
> A filter without conditions won't be triggered by any message, Yes, that's exactly what I would have thought. However... I tested earlier and created a filter without any conditions and added three sub filters, moving various email to three different folders. I manually ran the filter and the subfilters worked. Looking at the sorting office, I found that TB! adds back a Sender Contains [ ] condition, even after you delete it and okay it. So this condition is obviously deliberately or inadvertently met, and so it works. > what you need is a filter that's triggered only by message list messages. > My suggestion would be to add all list addresses to a single address book > group and and check whether the To header is part of that AB group. Yes, I've done this before with something else. And your method is of course more elegant than the way I'm doing it, for sure. > And forget about 'continue processing with other filters', that's not > necessary here, neither in the parent nor in the sub-filters. What the > 'continue...' option does, is taking care that after a message triggers a > filter [...] Ahh, okay, thanks. I've always checked it as I wasn't completely sure (ambiguous to me) whether it meant something else. But clear now about its function, cheers. > Off hand I can't think of any example where using 'continue processing' > isn't contra-productive. I'll no longer be using it. P>> Would this be a 'proper' way to configure a filter? > Not quite. Okay. > It would work. Yeah, found that out. > A few notes. You're testing against the 'Envelope-to:' header, my guess is > that that's added by your ISP and it mentions the intended recipient. Well, yes, but JFTR, it'll be my hosting company rather than my ISP...don't use ISP mail servers at all. > When somebody sends you an off list message to your list address that > will be sorted to your list folder. Yeah, that's a good point actually. > In itself not a big issue, but your reply to it might be coloured > differently when you'd realize that it's a private message. I can see the potential for a 'hiccup' there ;-). > Therefore I wouldn't filter on the address it has been sent to, but I'd > use a header that's added/altered by the list. That's how I used to do it, for years. Only recently changed it as well. I'll change it back :-D -- Simon (Privateofcourse) #24383. Rig Owe New Hods? ¶ TB! 4.2.6 WinXP Pro Service Pack 3 ________________________________________________ Current version is 4.2.6 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
