Hello St.
--On 19 May 2005 12:26 +0200 you wrote about Re: Proposal for spam filters:
That feature is a big problem, and I can't believe it is still in there!
It's a feature I never use. You don't need Mailwasher to bounce mail
though, The Bat is more than capable of doing that on it's own
Hello Marck.
--On 19 May 2005 11:49 +0100 you wrote about Re: Proposal for spam filters:
Spamcop do filter spam for you, but only if you use a spamcop.net
email address, which you are not doing, so it's not that.
I quite like the idea of that for 16 quid a year, what do you think?
--
Tony
Hello Marck.
--On 19 May 2005 11:57 +0100 you wrote about Re: Proposal for spam filters:
No Marck - it was Tony's mistake.
Yes, sorry my mistake.
But I can't find where they define their whitelisting stuff.
How odd, you gave the impression you used it all the time for allowing
certain
I think you'll find that was Tony's typo. His description is of
spamcop.net.
Not if Mailwasher is involved it wasn't.
Spamcop (as in spamcop.net) has no association with Mailwasher whatsoever that
I am aware
of.
Spamcop do filter spam for you, but only if you use a spamcop.net
email
How odd, you gave the impression you used it all the time for allowing
certain addresses through that were wrongly classified as spam? Isn't that
why you wanted a [TAG] in the subject line, to make it easier for you to
enter those addresses into your spamcop whitelist?
No Tony that was me
I quite like the idea of that for 16 quid a year, what do you think?
I have used them commercially for a few years and find it is a great
system. You have a certain level of tweaking to adjust the
balance between false reporting and getting too many spams. Until I
joined this group (and it
You still didn't say what software you use for initially trapping spam? I
can't find Spamcop software anywhere. Could you please tell me where to
download it from?
Spamcop.net is a service not software
Spamcop.com sell Mailwasher software
--
Best wishes,
Steve Lee
http://jumbocruiser.com
Dear Tony,
@19-May-2005, 12:41 Tony Boom [TB] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
TB How odd, you gave the impression you used it all the time for allowing
TB certain addresses through that were wrongly classified as spam? Isn't that
TB why you wanted a [TAG] in the subject line, to make it easier
Hello Marck.
--On 19 May 2005 13:02 +0100 you wrote about Re: Proposal for spam filters:
pssst - wrong person! I was replying to myself, correcting my faulty
research. It is Steve Lee who uses the Spamcop mail filtering, not me!
So ... sorry ... your mistake it remains ;-)
Oooops, sorry
Hello Steve.
--On 19 May 2005 13:04 +0100 you wrote about Re[2]: Proposal for spam
filters:
Until I
joined this group (and it will settle down) I had usually 1 or 2 spams
and maybe 1 false report out of 500 genuine spams.
I might give that a go I think.
Am I right in thinking I can use
Am I right in thinking I can use it for an NTL account and then forward all
that to my boomclan account?
Yes that is right. Redirect your NTL stuff to your spamcop.net
account then either use their POP to collect *all* your emails or else
instruct spamcop to forward to your other account.
I
Tony Boom:
[MailWasher's Mail Bouncer] is a feature I never use.
Good!
My point is that the software suggest and promotes a feature that adds
to the spam problem: Say that a spam is misusing your address as Sender.
Would you dislike Mailwasher to accuse you of spamming and thus
St:
In the stricked sense...
Huh...that misspell was loud and embarrasing... :/
--
St
Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
On Wed, 18 May 2005 01:25:06 +0200, Steve Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In order to easily identify emails from this group trapped in our spam
filters can all subject fields please be prefixed with [The Bat!] if
you have control over the emailer software used?
OMG please don't! We can perfectly
Hello Steve,
On Wednesday, May 18, 2005 at 1:25:06 AM Steve [SL] wrote:
SL In order to easily identify emails from this group trapped in our spam
SL filters can all subject fields please be prefixed with [The Bat!] if
SL you have control over the emailer software used?
the idea might sound
Why can't you just sort on list email adresses?!? You can not rely on
each user to insert a tag - it won't work!
I was not asking each user to insert a tag, I was asking the operator
of the mailing list to do it. That is how Yahoo Groups works and it
is very effective.
I use Spamcop for
You should think about your antispam solution if its dependent on a
subject tag to work reliably.
It is not the anti-spam solution that requires the subject tag, it is
to make it easier to manually scan for trapped (false positive)
messages so they can be identified and the sender whitelisted.
the idea might sound simple and great, iow really efficient, BUT: what
prevents spam from being sent with exactly this phrase in the subject?
We use Yahoo Groups for the SWREG mailing list and every email that
Yahoo Groups sends out has [SWREG] inserted at the beginning of every
message
The best way to not falsely identify mails on this list as spam is to
match the Return-Path against received lines, because all this lists
mail have a Return-Path of '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' and are
coming from '62.80.28.8' which identifies itself as
'draenor.its-toasted.org'.
You are assuming
Steve,
On 18-05-2005 01:25, you [SL] wrote in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
SL In order to easily identify emails from this group trapped in our
SL spam filters can all subject fields please be prefixed with [The
SL Bat!] if you have control over the emailer software used?
Please don't. Most people
Hello Steve.
--On 18 May 2005 10:43 +0100 you wrote about Re[2]: [TBUDL] Proposal for
spam filters:
That is how Yahoo Groups works and it is very effective.
TBOT is a Yahoo group list and I've never seen anything like extra subject
tags in any subject line? Just the standard subject as typed
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:45:21 +0200, Steve Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You should think about your antispam solution if its dependent on a
subject tag to work reliably.
It is not the anti-spam solution that requires the subject tag, it is
to make it easier to manually scan for trapped (false
Steve Lee:
I use Spamcop for filtering rather than TB or any other local product as
I find Spamcop usually very accurate with very few false positives but I
found 24 trapped messages from this group yesterday where I might expect
to find only 1 or 2 and identifying them so I can whitelist
Hello Steve,
On 18 May 2005, 10:49 you wrote:
The best way to not falsely identify mails on this list as spam is to
match the Return-Path against received lines, because all this lists
mail have a Return-Path of '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' and are
coming from '62.80.28.8' which identifies itself as
Hello Tony,
That is how Yahoo Groups works and it is very effective.
TBOT is a Yahoo group list and I've never seen anything like extra subject
tags in any subject line? Just the standard subject as typed.
It is an optional configuration setting in each group/mailing list.
--
Best
Alexander S. Kunz:
But then again, the antispam solution you're using shouldn't catch on
TBUDlist messages... if it does, it would be interesting to see which
parameter raises the spam probability level of a list message - and
correct that error of the spam filter.
SpamCop allows
TBOT is a Yahoo group list and I've never seen anything like extra subject
tags in any subject line? Just the standard subject as typed.
It is a configurable option, by default it displays.
Ineterestingly enough this very thread has [TBUDL] at the beginning of the
subject field.
--
Best
But then again, the antispam solution you're using shouldn't catch on
TBUDlist messages... if it does, it would be interesting to see which
parameter raises the spam probability level of a list message - and
correct that error of the spam filter.
Spamcop as an option takes information from
Hello Steve.
--On 18 May 2005 13:50 +0100 you wrote about Re[4]: [TBUDL] Proposal for
spam filters:
Ineterestingly enough this very thread has [TBUDL] at the beginning of the
subject field.
Only because some poor gullible soul took you too seriously :)
I used to belong to a list that had
Hello Steve.
--On 18 May 2005 13:53 +0100 you wrote about Re[4]: Proposal for spam
filters:
I get a number from users of this mailing list.
Would it not be better for you to find out why they are being falsely
classified as spam rather than to expect them to do it for you?
Like I said before
Hello Tony,
%SINGLERE in your template will cure that.
Or Account/Properties/Templates/Reply and deselect 'Use reply numbering
in the subject line'.
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v3.5
Current
Only because some poor gullible soul took you too seriously :)
I have reason to belive I am that gullible person, thank you!
Please notice that the [TBUDL] tag was automagically added to
the subject line by the software I am running here on my PCs. And
when replying to the original
Hi Tony,
On 18/05/2005 11:24 AM +0100, you wrote:
TBOT is a Yahoo group list and I've never seen anything like extra
subject tags in any subject line? Just the standard subject as typed.
It was specifically administered to do that. Subject prefixing isn't an
imposed feature for all Yahoo
Hello St - Musaic.Net everyone else,
on 18-Mai-2005 at 14:11 you (St - Musaic.Net) wrote:
SpamCop allows you to whitelist Senders, not Recipients.
Its a known fact that many inferior spamfilters have problems dealing with
mailing lists, yes.
--
Best regards,
Alexander
Hello Steve Lee everyone else,
on 18-Mai-2005 at 14:53 you (Steve Lee) wrote:
I get a number from users of this mailing list
That may (partly) be because server side spam killers (SA for sure, don't
know about others) still handle the X-Mailer: header entry The Bat!
(version_number) as
Wednesday, May 18, 2005, Steve Lee wrote:
It is not the anti-spam solution that requires the subject tag, it is
to make it easier to manually scan for trapped (false positive)
messages so they can be identified and the sender whitelisted.
I fail to see why this would be a good thing in the TB
side filtering
For viruses I do have to, but having to crawl through trapped spam
messages on server side, just to release the probable false positives
I'm too lazy for. I therefore just tag spam and filter by simply The
Bat! filters and verify locally if a false positive was caught.
SL via Spamcop
Like I said before, spam very, very rarely gets to these lists so why not
just add the complete domain @thebat.dutaint.com to your whitelist? T
I use Spamcop and can only whitelist senders not receivers and the
sender is yourself not the bat.
--
Best wishes,
Steve Lee
Hello Steve Lee everyone else,
on 18-Mai-2005 at 23:21 you (Steve Lee) wrote:
I use Spamcop and can only whitelist senders not receivers and the
sender is yourself not the bat.
Well, the Sender of the list messages, according to the headers I'm
seeing, is Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED], while the
Well, the Sender of the list messages, according to the headers I'm
seeing, is Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED], while the From
field has the address of the message author.
In which case my word useage is wrong. I can only whitelist 'from'
addresses I guess.
--
Best wishes,
Steve Lee
Dear Ritlab folks,
In order to easily identify emails from this group trapped in our spam
filters can all subject fields please be prefixed with [The Bat!] if
you have control over the emailer software used?
I would hate to accidentally report genuine emails as spam at Spamcop
for instance
In order to easily identify emails from this group trapped in our spam
filters can all subject fields please be prefixed with [The Bat!] if
you have control over the emailer software used?
Why can't you just sort on list email adresses?!? You can not rely on
each user to insert a tag
Steve Lee wrote:
SL In order to easily identify emails from this group trapped in our
SL spam filters can all subject fields please be prefixed with [The
SL Bat!] if you have control over the emailer software used?
Please, no. IMO it's a waste of horizontal space. There are plenty
of headers
On Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 19:47:07, St - Musaic.Net wrote:
I just designed a plug-in for my TB featuring a bunch of *very* useful
things (ie. a *terrific* anti-spam system). One feture I eventually
added was one that inserts the correct subject tag for any mailing
list (TBUDL, TBBTEA, etc.).
Hello Roman.
--On 17 May 2005 21:26 -0400 you wrote about Re: [TBUDL] Proposal for spam
filters:
Neat. Can you post it somewhere? With it's source maybe?
Gordon Bennett. Everyone's going to be using it now. Subject lines full of
quirky little anecdotes enclosed in square brackets. I'm
Hello Thomas,
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 21:05:08 +0700 GMT (08/04/2005, 21:05 +0700 GMT),
Thomas Fernandez wrote:
TF I found a way around: Instead of using Incoming filters, I use Read
TF filters. This way, the message stays in the original account until I
TF open it, and then it will be copied
Incoming filters, I use Read
filters. This way, the message stays in the original account until I
open it, and then it will be copied to the archive folder. Perfect!
(Except that I do indeed have to manually move each single filter, but
that is a one-time effort.)
One drawback I still have to think
Hello TBUDL,
Some of you may remember my saga about common versus account filters.
The solution seems to be there, the XRay developers have provided a
beta that adds the X-Apparently-To header based on the server (email
address) the mail is downloaded from. So I can now filter on that, if
my beta
Thomas Fernandez @ 2005-Apr-7 10:26:30 AM
Changing filters mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But my new idea is to use the country folders in the main account as
an archive, while having the current messages (30 days or so) in the
department folders. Thus, I need to copy to the country folders
instead
Hello Chris,
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 20:50:50 -0400 GMT (08/04/2005, 07:50 +0700 GMT),
Chris wrote:
Is there an easy way to change the filters from Move to Copy, or
would I have to open and go through all of them?
C It seems like Virtual Folders may be a good solution for you. They
C basically
Thomas Fernandez @ 2005-Apr-7 9:50:50 PM
Changing filters mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems like Virtual Folders may be a good solution for you. They
basically are the results of a constantly updated search query
stored in a folder for easy access.
With over 100,000 messages in over 100
Hello tbudl,
What are the spamcop filters for v3? I cannot find them anywhere
Sean
--
ICQ: 679813 YAHOO: thecivvie
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: tcobone
Vodafone +353879120530
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Current
snip
Create a common filter and share it with the accounts that should use it.
PL] Thanks Alexander. This is what I was looking for.
I have already created a number of filters for an account. How do I move
them to the common filters as you suggested? I tried right clicking the
filters and using
Hello Pranav,
I have already created a number of filters for an account. How do I move
them to the common filters as you suggested? I tried right clicking the
filters and using the cut tree option and then pasting the tree in the
common filters but that did not seem to help.
I have never
Hallo Pranav,
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:02:48 +0530GMT (9-3-2005, 13:32 +0100, where I
live), you wrote:
PL filters and using the cut tree option and then pasting the tree in the
PL common filters but that did not seem to help.
PL Pranav
PL
Hi all,
I have multiple email addresses. I want to use a single set of filters to
filter from those email addresses. How do I do this in TheBat v3.01
(professional)?
OS=windows 2000 professional.
Pranav
Hello Pranav Lal everyone else,
on 08-Mrz-2005 at 18:53 you (Pranav Lal) wrote:
I have multiple email addresses. I want to use a single set of filters to
filter from those email addresses. How do I do this in TheBat v3.01
(professional)?
OS=windows 2000 professional.
Create a common
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sat, 26 Feb 2005,
@ @ at 00:38:01 +, when MFPA wrote:
I remember somebody who said only email me with this exact subject
line, or your messages will be junked by my spam filters
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:39:55 -0500, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[attack dropped]|scan dropped]|[sppf dropped] TextYes
This probably isn't the problem, but you're missing a '[' before scan.
Yeah; I manually typed it into the msg - they're in the actual filter,
though.
--
Happy
Reply to message sent 2/23/2005, @ 12:08:24 (5:08 AM Locally)
~~~
Hello Roelof,
For this to work you'll only need to setup a series of common filters
that direct everything to your main account.
Cool. I never even knew that common
of v3 as part of the new
filtering system.
ND Now... is there any way to copy and paste a bunch of filters at once
ND or am I doomed to do each one separately?
Well, as long as you don't have any common filters and you'd like to
move all filters of an account to make them common
Hallo Richard,
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:55:16 +0500GMT (25-2-2005, 1:55 +0100, where I
live), you wrote:
MM This way you practically can filter everything using just Selective
MM Download filters.
RHS In the beginning, I'll just filter those that don't pass to a junk
RHS folder I can check
Reply to message sent 2/23/2005, @ 12:08:24 (5:08 AM Locally)
~~~
Hello Roelof,
For this to work you'll only need to setup a series of common filters
that direct everything to your main account.
Cool. I never even knew that common
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Fri, 25 Feb 2005,
@ @ at 05:55:16 +0500, when Richard H. Stoddard wrote:
For some reason I was assuming it would be more complicated than it
turned out to be. I guess that's because
spam filters.
Mind, he hosted a software download site and provided email
support.
--
Best regards,
MFPAmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
Current version
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:13:17 +, Marck D Pearlstone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
log-fw Sender Yes
alert Subject Yes
[scan|attack] dropped TextYes
On v2.12.00 this did the trick:
log-fw Sender Yes
).
~~~
This way you practically can filter everything using just Selective
Download filters.
There is no 'fear' of losing some 'important' mail this way, since if
someone wants to contact you, for enough serious reasons, s/he will
definitely take care about way s/he is addressing you.
Even if something
using just Selective
MM Download filters.
In the beginning, I'll just filter those that don't pass to a junk
folder I can check periodically. Some of my friends are slow learners.
:-)
--
Thanks, Rick
Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL
Cory @ 2005-Feb-24 4:27:14 AM
Help with filters please mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[attack dropped]|scan dropped]|[sppf dropped] TextYes
This probably isn't the problem, but you're missing a '[' before scan.
--
Chris
Quoting when replying to this message is good for your karma.
Using
Is this possible to do:
Have several accounts that all send messages to one account where the
messages are then sorted via the filters of the final destination
account?
Perhaps clearer:
I would like to have one main account, but be able to use various
e-mail address and any mail coming
plug-in and virus plug-in.
For this to work you'll only need to setup a series of common filters
that direct everything to your main account. Of course you can achieve
that also by creating filters for every account, but when you do it
with common filters, you've got only set of filters to maintain
contrary.
Ah - well, [] and Regex cannot be used together. And I'm not sure that
this applies in the same way to V3 filters. Sounds like you're using
v2. This is not going to make it easy since nobody can test your
filters or supply you with one.
Nobody using v2 anymore? Mhhh...
(I'm not going
Hi @ll,
Could someone please give me a hint on how to work this out?
I want to set up filtering for log messages where sender and subject
contain similar strings, and body text contains (non-) capitalized
lowercase phrases like scan dropped and Attack Dropped.
The use of [] and | isn't all that
isn't doing the trick
C either...
Ah - well, [] and Regex cannot be used together. And I'm not sure that
this applies in the same way to V3 filters. Sounds like you're using
v2. This is not going to make it easy since nobody can test your
filters or supply you with one.
C This set:
C log-fw
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Mon, 21 Feb 2005,
@ @ at 08:20:20 +0500, when Richard H. Stoddard wrote:
Mica,
Monday, February 21, 2005, 12:41:17 AM, you wrote:
MM Okay. Tell me first do you as well have your
Mica,
Monday, February 21, 2005, 5:39:50 PM, you wrote:
MM Okay then, less problems to solve. Tell me, do you have some friends, or
MM business partners who do not address you properly, namely not using your
MM full name (or a screen/nick name defined by yourself) in TO (or CC)
MM field, but
Hello Mica,
I'll try to say this in other way... When you make a party, you do not
have to check entire city to know who is *not* invited, in order to
decide who of them will be passed in in your beautiful house; you pass
just those with invitations of yours. (-: The fine people who address
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sun, 20 Feb 2005,
@ @ at 13:20:26 +0100, when MAU wrote:
Hello Mica,
I'll try to say this in other way... When you make a party, you do not
have to check entire city to know who
Hello Mica,
So, as to my part of job, it is up on me to define a form of
addressing, and as to your part of job, it is up on you to use exactly
this form of addressing. And then you are in and the party goes. (-:
OK, understood. Hope you have enough beer ;-)
--
Best regards,
Miguel A.
Hello Mica Mijatovic everyone else,
on 19-Feb-2005 at 23:28 you (Mica Mijatovic) wrote:
Filter against what you *accept*/receive, not against what you do
*not*. (-:
Isn't that exactly what you do when you train a(ny) Bayes filter?
I'll try to say this in other way... When you make a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sun, 20 Feb 2005,
@ @ at 18:23:42 +0100, when Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
I make a party all the time with my emails :) and all kind of people
(mails) come by. I classify the mails and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sun, 20 Feb 2005,
@ @ at 18:10:01 +0100, when MAU wrote:
Hello Mica,
So, as to my part of job, it is up on me to define a form of
addressing, and as to your part of job, it is up
Mica,
Sunday, February 20, 2005, 3:28:46 AM, you wrote:
MM Will be my pleasure to lead you gently to the core of this beauty,
MM unknown before, and to see your eyes admiring it. (-:
I'm prepared to go that route, but how do I do it? I already have a
number of addresses white-listed (such as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sun, 20 Feb 2005,
@ @ at 07:34:51 +0500, when Richard H. Stoddard wrote:
Mica,
Sunday, February 20, 2005, 3:28:46 AM, you wrote:
MM Will be my pleasure to lead you gently to the
Mica,
Monday, February 21, 2005, 12:41:17 AM, you wrote:
MM Okay. Tell me first do you as well have your address on some of web
MM sites of yours, and if you do, in what form you have it exposed there?
MM Namely, what exactly mailto:; code/form you use?
No, I don't have it on any public web
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just few thoughts about anti-spam strategy, before I forget it...
Cringely, Info World http://www.infoworld.com:
BEGINNING
Filter This:
Spam may be annoying, but spam filters may prove a bigger problem.
Dozens of readers have contributed terms
Hello Mica Mijatovic everyone else,
on 19-Feb-2005 at 18:01 you (Mica Mijatovic) wrote:
Filter against what you *accept*/receive,
not against what you do *not*. (-:
Isn't that exactly what you do when you train a(ny) Bayes filter?
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sat, 19 Feb 2005,
@ @ at 20:11:40 +0100, when Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
Hello Mica Mijatovic everyone else,
on 19-Feb-2005 at 18:01 you (Mica Mijatovic) wrote:
Filter against
I'm trying to filter out the remaining junk mail that gets by BayesIt
(and K9), the most prevalent of which are messages that have my e-mail
address but a name other than mine. (I've already filtered out mail that
doesn't have my e-mail address in the recipient field.) I tried to
read the
ON Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 9:59:02 PM, you wrote:
ASK I have a setup of *account* filters (for all mailinglists) with one parent
ASK filter (and it has NO action defined!), then subfilters for each
ASK individual list, and it works just fine.
Alexander,
Strange, I will check it again. Maybe
Hello Gerard everyone else,
on 12-Jan-2005 at 11:05 you (Gerard) wrote:
ASK I have a setup of *account* filters (for all mailinglists) with one parent
ASK filter (and it has NO action defined!), then subfilters for each
ASK individual list, and it works just fine.
Strange, I will check
Hello Gerard,
Monday, January 10, 2005, 10:50:38 PM, you wrote:
When you have these filters:
Filter 1: If A do 1
Sub-filter 1: If B do 2
Sub-filter 2: If C do 3
Filter 2: If D do 4
What conditions have to be met to have B or C executed?
For B to be executed, A and B must
ON Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 10:10:09 AM, you wrote:
What conditions have to be met to have B or C executed?
ASK For B to be executed, A and B must be there of course.
ASK For C to be executed, A and C must be there.
I thought you would have to meet Condition A but that will only
execute 1.
Hello Gerard everyone else,
on 11-Jan-2005 at 13:05 you (Gerard) wrote:
I found that there MUST be a condition 1 with A.
I did not have a condition 1, so TB! felt it not useful to have a look at
condition B C when A was true.
I no have it change the color group :-)
So, I am up and
ON Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 7:08:21 PM, you wrote:
ASK I don't understand a thing I don't know what you've changed that it works
ASK now, but I am glad it does!
Alexander,
We can not have that :-)
Situation:
Filter 1: If A do 1
Sub-filter 1: If B do 2
Sub-filter 2: If C do 3
I
. I find your information quite valuable.
I have a setup of *account* filters (for all mailinglists) with one parent
filter (and it has NO action defined!), then subfilters for each
individual list, and it works just fine.
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981
Hi Bat Users,
How do I make sure a msg is filtered by the sub filters in a filter?
I assumed that if the condition of the top filter was met this would trigger the
email to be filtered by the subfilters, but this does not seem the case.
So this isn't a big IF-THEN, What-Then?
--
Best regards
Hello Gerard everyone else,
on 10-Jan-2005 at 20:06 you (Gerard) wrote:
I assumed that if the condition of the top filter was met this would trigger
the
email to be filtered by the subfilters, but this does not seem the case.
That should work... as long as it ain't a common filter.
So
ON Monday, January 10, 2005, 9:28:30 PM, you wrote:
ASK If it is a common filter, its this bug maybe?
ASK https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=4021
Wel it is a common filter but not this bug.
When you have these filters:
Filter 1: If A do 1
Sub-filter 1: If B do 2
Sub-filter 2: If C do 3
programmer that does most of the
filtering stuff (9Val) that question. He told me that once the message has
passed all filters, the user params are cleared/dropped and NOT preserved.
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)
using TB! v3.0.2.10 Home on Windows XP Pro Service
301 - 400 of 1605 matches
Mail list logo
