Re[2]: Filter problem

2007-02-09 Thread Joyce Ragels
Hello, Friday, February 9, 2007, 1:00:00 PM, you wrote: > As Roelof said - check out the order of the filters in the Sorting > Office again. :-) Make sure that the "Known" filter (if you have it) > comes *after* the other filters you created. > Try to move one of the filters that should sort me

Re[2]: Filter problem

2007-02-09 Thread Joyce Ragels
Hello Roelof, Thursday, February 8, 2007, 10:27:26 AM, you wrote: > 1) Check whether your filters are active (on the options tab), that is > the default, so that shouldn't be the cause. > 2) Check whether the message is processed by another filter, filters > are checked top down and a message pr

Re[2]: Filter problem "yet"

2003-01-29 Thread telepro
Hello Jonathan, > Well this is a start. What I have a feeling is you're adding filter > strings to the alternatives, so that you only have 1 "Set" in the > "alternative" rules, instead of multiple "sets". This results in the > following effect: > [Filter 1] OR [Filter 2 AND Filter 3 AND Filte

Re[2]: Filter problem "yet"

2003-01-29 Thread telepro
Hello Miguel, >> I puted an expression >> stings location : presence : >> vivivi kludges no > All your messages match this rule because none of them include > "vivivi" in the headers (kludges) Ok, I understand :-) > I have a similar filter and I use: > strings locatio

Re[2]: Filter problem "yet"

2003-01-29 Thread telepro
Hello Jonathan, >> Therefore I'm obliged to put at least one string in the "rule" ? > Not really no, but it depends what you want the filter to do. yes an antispam filter ! >>> Try putting something in the first page ("Rules"), >> I try >> I puted an expression >> stings location :

Re[2]: Filter problem "yet"

2003-01-29 Thread telepro
Hello Jonathan, >> I tried to apply an antispam method by applying a filtering with >> "alternatives" on keywords. The problem is that TB sends to the >> folder "antispam " created for that purpose, all the mails, same those >> who don't contain the strings, with no exception... In fact, it >> se

Re[2]: Filter problem

2001-05-19 Thread Jan Rifkinson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Dierk, On Saturday, May 19, 2001 19:02:40 [ +0200 GMT], you wrote the following in regards to 'Filter problem': >> [...] The common denominator is your sender name >> which is why I've filtered on that rather than worrying about >> where

Re[2]: Filter problem

2001-05-19 Thread Jan Rifkinson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Dierk, On Saturday, May 19, 2001 17:46:39 [ +0200 GMT], you wrote the following in regards to 'Filter problem': Dierk> I use Move to Trash for this, it is much safer, since Trash is only Dierk> emptied when I end the session. so if I have a lo

Re[2]: Filter problem

2001-05-19 Thread Jan Rifkinson
Hello Dierk, On Saturday, May 19, 2001 10:55:27 [ +0200 GMT], you wrote the following in regards to 'Filter problem': Dierk> [...] Main rule (one set): dierkhaasis in Sender Yes AND Dierk> PGP-Baiscs in Subject Yes Alternative rules: Set 1. Dierk> dierkhaasis in Sender Yes AND TBOT in Kludges Ye

Re[2]: Filter problem?

2000-09-11 Thread BillG
> That's probably not the problem. I don't care for the | method of > creating OR connections in TB. I find they can be ambiguous. I won't go > into all the details, but suffice it to say that I prefer using one Main > rule and one Alternate rule for OR connections. Oh!! So THAT's what the Al

Re[2]: filter problem

2000-06-14 Thread phil
Greetings Marek! On Tuesday, June 13, 2000 at 17:52:55 GMT +0200 (which was 8:52 AM where you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: MM> Hello all, MM> Tuesday, June 13, 2000, Larry Barrett wrote: >> I would certainly be grateful for any suggestions. I might add that I >> use this same fi