Re: Common vs account filters

Hello Thomas, M>> No, please. The problem is that Common filters are still buggy. Otherwise M>> you could easily do what you wish. > > How can I do what I want to do with subfilters in common filters? George Mitchel has explained it perfectly and, as I can see, you have seen our point. -- Best

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello George, On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 19:23:03 -0800 GMT (06/01/2005, 10:23 +0700 GMT), George Mitchell wrote: GM> As I understand the problem, you have a lot of complicated common GM> filters. Since the common filters are evaluated before account GM> filters, you have to specify "continue processing

Re: Common vs account filters

Thomas Fernandez wrote: TF> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:11:10 +0100 GMT (06/01/2005, 06:11 +0700 TF> GMT), MAU wrote: M>> No, please. The problem is that Common filters are still buggy. M>> Otherwise you could easily do what you wish. TF> How can I do what I want to do with subfilters in common filter

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello MAU, On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:11:10 +0100 GMT (06/01/2005, 06:11 +0700 GMT), MAU wrote: >> I think this would work: If the account-level filters were processed >> before the common filters, what I need to do could be accomplished. >> Would anybody else find this useful, and should I put it in

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello George, On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:47:45 -0800 GMT (06/01/2005, 06:47 +0700 GMT), George Mitchell wrote: TF>> If the account-level filters were processed before the common TF>> filters, what I need to do could be accomplished. Would anybody TF>> else find this useful, and should I put it in the

Re: Common vs account filters

Thomas Fernandez wrote: TF> If the account-level filters were processed before the common TF> filters, what I need to do could be accomplished. Would anybody TF> else find this useful, and should I put it in the wish list as an TF> option? It's already there: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello Thomas, > I think this would work: If the account-level filters were processed > before the common filters, what I need to do could be accomplished. > Would anybody else find this useful, and should I put it in the wish > list as an option? No, please. The problem is that Common filters are

Re: Common vs account filters

Hæ! Wednesday, January 5, 2005, 18:03, Thomas Fernandez wrote: > Another idea is an optional setting in the common filters "continue > processing with account filters", so that only those, and not the > other common filters, are processed when a match is found. Any > seconders? Me!!! -- Kveðja,

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello list, On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 08:23:11 +0700 GMT (05/01/2005, 08:23 +0700 GMT), Thomas Fernandez wrote: TF> I need to be able to reply from the account that the mail was TF> originally sent to, though. Maybe I am think along the wrong track. TF> Does anybody have an idea how I could do what I wa

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello Marcus, On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:49:30 +0100 GMT (05/01/2005, 17:49 +0700 GMT), Marcus Ohlström wrote: MO> Create a parent filter matching all messages and make your common MO> filters subfilters of this catch-all-filter. Make sure "Continue MO> processing with other filters" is ticked for the

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello Alexander, On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:01:57 +0100 GMT (05/01/2005, 17:01 +0700 GMT), Alexander S. Kunz wrote: ASK> Wouldn't it be possible to pick the original "TO" information in a %IF ASK> clause and automagically determine the correct account to use for the ASK> reply? No, because the addres

Re: Common vs account filters

Marcus Ohlström wrote: MO> Create a parent filter matching all messages and make your common MO> filters subfilters of this catch-all-filter. Make sure "Continue MO> processing with other filters" is ticked for the parent filter. Nice idea. If only common sub-filters worked: https://www.ritlabs

Re: Common vs account filters

On Wednesday, January 5, 2005, 02:23, Thomas Fernandez wrote: BA>> Yes, I can confirm this behavior, but can't say whether this is a BA>> bug or wanted. But I think this is wanted, because if a filter BA>> matches a message, filtering stops (if not [X] Continue processing BA>> with other filters

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello Thomas Fernandez & everyone else, on 05-Jan-2005 at 02:23 you (Thomas Fernandez) wrote: > However, I need the account level filters only to makr the messages with > something so I know which account they were first sent to, before being > moved to the folders that they share, so I know whic

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello Boris, On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:09:46 +0100 GMT (05/01/2005, 00:09 +0700 GMT), Boris Anders wrote: >> However, I can reproduce the problem now: When the common filter >> catches, the account-level filters are not triggered any more. BA> Yes, I can confirm this behavior, but can't say whether

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello Boris Anders & everyone else, on 04-Jan-2005 at 18:09 you (Boris Anders) wrote: > Yes, I can confirm this behavior, but can't say whether this is a bug or > wanted. But I think this is wanted, because if a filter matches a > message, filtering stops (if not [X] Continue processing with othe

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello Thomas, Thomas Fernandez wrote (in ): > However, I can reproduce the problem now: When the common filter > catches, the account-level filters are not triggered any more. Yes, I can confirm this behavior, but can't say whether this is a bug or wanted. But I think this

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello Boris, On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:07:21 +0100 GMT (02/01/2005, 17:07 +0700 GMT), Boris Anders wrote: >> Can anybody reproduce this with this beta? BA> If I remember right, there was long time ago such a problem - why don't BA> you use the current beta (and look, whether bug still exist): BA> ht

Re[2]: Common vs account filters

Hello Boris, Sunday, January 2, 2005, 4:07:21 AM, you wrote: Hello Boris, A reminder of what Boris Anders typed on: January 2, 2005 at 11:07:21 GMT +0100 BA> Thomas Fernandez wrote (in BA> ): >> Common filters don't work at all on this machine (running The Bat! >> 3.0

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello Thomas, Thomas Fernandez wrote (in ): > Common filters don't work at all on this machine (running The Bat! > 3.0.2.4 Rush under Win98). > Reason: "Share with" settings for common filters are not sticky. > Can anybody reproduce this with this beta? If I remember rig

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello List, On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:14:30 +0700 GMT (24/12/2004, 21:14 +0700 GMT), Thomas Fernandez wrote: SC>> Tried doing this with Common filter moving and Account filter doing SC>> the coloring and then tried Account filter moving and Common filter SC>> doing the coloring. Both worked by movin

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello Stuart, On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:07:55 -0600 GMT (24/12/2004, 11:07 +0700 GMT), Stuart Cuddy wrote: SC> Tried doing this with Common filter moving and Account filter doing SC> the coloring and then tried Account filter moving and Common filter SC> doing the coloring. Both worked by moving and

Re: Common vs account filters

Hello Thomas, Thursday, December 23, 2004, 8:08:11 PM, you wrote: TF> Is this a bug or am I trying something not intended? 9Val said that TF> the link to the message object will not be lost by moving. Tried doing this with Common filter moving and Account filter doing the coloring and then tried

Common vs account filters

Hello TBBETA, Those of you who are also subscribed to TBUDL will have seen this already, but I am still not sure whether I am doing something wrong or whether it's a bug. The goal is to move messages to appropriate folders in the main account regardless of whether they first arrive in the main acc