It would be easier to give you advice if you had provided at least one
example of a message that you *cannot* sort sccessfully, instead of only
describing the ones you *can* sort. In looking at this morning's messages, I
didn't see any that did not include "linux-newbie" in either the To: or Cc:
field. The one that did not include the full "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
address is probably a system that needs to do something like UUCP-type
relaying (a guess only - what do you say, Richard?) -- this is NOT a list
problem but an accommodation to the realities of the variety of e-mailing
methods that still exist and sucessfully interoperate.
I don't know the capabilities of Outlook, but can you either sort on To: OR
Cc: "linux-newbie" without the rest of the address, OR on the Sender: header
(which always seems to be "[EMAIL PROTECTED]")?Either
should serve you, based on what I notice about message headers.
At 02:46 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Joseph Spacone wrote:
>I am really having a problem here....I have several different accounts and
>"in-box" folders set up, and I have applied various rules to them so that
>the incoming mail gets sorted to the proper folder. The problem that I'm
>having though is that this list does not seem to conform to any
>rule....sometimes the postings (like this one) are sent directly
>TO:Linux-newbie@ etc, sometimes they are posted to the recipients address
>with a CC:Linux-newbie@ etc..and I just received a posting that did not meet
>EITHER of those two criteria. I have rules set up to handle the TO and the
>CC, but if the posting doesn't meet either of those, then I have no idea
>what to do. What's going on here? Is there no conformity on this list, or
>am I doing something wrong? I am using Outlook Express and Win98.
------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"---
Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo
762 Garland Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303-3603
650.321.3561 voice 650.322.1209 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------
