Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello Dave, On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:22:53 -0400 GMT (17/07/03, 04:22 +0700 GMT), Dave Kennedy wrote: > So, now the question becomes - what next? Hmmm. I looked at the > suggestion of creating my own Known filter, but the choice in the > Location column is TB!'s generic (and per

Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

's the culprit. I checked ~30 spams with my e-mail in the To: that didn't leak and none have it in the Return-Path. So, now the question becomes - what next? Hmmm. I looked at the suggestion of creating my own Known filter, but the choice in the Location column is TB!'s generic (and

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello Bill, > Could you be more specific - i.e. which of the 25 topics returned? Not rally, I didn't read them all. I didn't even count them like you did. > I know Sender checks From:, Sender:, Reply-To: and Return-Path: but I > didn't find a definitive list. Have I missed any? I think you are

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

On Wed 16-Jul-03 4:37pm -0400, Marck D Pearlstone wrote: > @16-Jul-2003, 16:31 -0400 (21:31 UK time) Bill McCarthy [BM] in > mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to MAU: >>> And what is "sender"? Help/Find/sender :) BM>> Could you be more specific - i.e. which of the 25 topics BM>> returned? BM>> I know

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Bill, @16-Jul-2003, 16:31 -0400 (21:31 UK time) Bill McCarthy [BM] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to MAU: >> And what is "sender"? Help/Find/sender :) BM> Could you be more specific - i.e. which of the 25 topics BM> returned? BM> I know Sender c

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

On Wed 16-Jul-03 3:56pm -0400, MAU wrote: > And what is "sender"? Help/Find/sender :) Could you be more specific - i.e. which of the 25 topics returned? I know Sender checks From:, Sender:, Reply-To: and Return-Path: but I didn't find a definitive list. Have I missed any? -- Best regards, Bi

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello Alexander, > 16-Jul-2003 17:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd prefer you don't quote my e-mail address in the body. Thanks, -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Current version is 1.62r | "Using TB

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello Alexander, > What Dave Kennedy wants to know is which fields of a message DOES the Known > filter compare with the given address book? > > You know, FROM, TO, REPLY-TO, etc. etc. Ah, that? I didn't know he was asking that ;-) It's the Sender's address. At l

Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Wednesday, July 16, 2003, 11:53:18 AM, Alexander wrote: A> 16-Jul-2003 17:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A> What Dave Kennedy wants to know is which fields of a message A> DOES the Known filter compare with the given address book? A> You know, FROM, TO, REPLY-TO, etc. etc. Thank yo

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

16-Jul-2003 17:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm telling you but you don't belive me. The reason for the leaks is you > put your Known filter first :-) What Dave Kennedy wants to know is which fields of a message DOES the Known filter compare with the given address book? Yo

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello Dave, M>> Anyway, if you put your Known filter first, you will see some M>> spam messages "leaking through" as you say in your original M>> post. > > I don't mind the leaking per se; it's not understanding the > reason for the leak that is k

Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 5:54:23 PM, Allie wrote: A> This thread has now been declared DEAD . as in DEAD A> HORSE!! I wasn't trying to get a POPFile/SpamPal battle going. What I'm trying to do is learn what the logic/algorithm is that TB! uses for the Known filter.

Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

en around on Usenet & the Internet since 1994 every spam list in the world has me on their list. So, reeling this back around to TB!, that is my reason for putting the Known filter first. M> Anyway, if you put your Known filter first, you will see some M> spam messages "leaking through&

Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 4:07:53 PM, WL wrote: W> Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 2:28:47 PM, Dave Kennedy wrote: DK>> I've got the Known filter first. Sometimes people I want to DK>> get e-mail from will send a note that has spam-like material DK>> in it. W> ...but that def

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Morse, [JM] wrote: JM> whoops I thought you were saying that it didn't work. JM> I see you said "not because it didn't work" JM> My Appologies! Note: This moderator's interjection is a note to all readers and not just to the person being r

Re[3]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal

Hello John, you wrote: >> well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work > LOL, yeaH right > I guess not all software is idiot-proof whoops I thought you were saying that it didn't work. I see you said "not because it didn't work" My Appologies! -- John Morse pagemaker -at- sem

Re[3]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello MikeD, you wrote: > The problem with 'black lists' is that inevitably there are a lot of > people on them that should not be. Did you know that you can "un-check" this feature from SpamPal if you do not wish to use it? -- John Morse pagemaker -at- semo -dot- net

Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal

Hello Paul, you wrote: > well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work LOL, yeaH right I guess not all software is idiot-proof -- John Morse pagemaker -at- semo -dot- net Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http:/

Re[3]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello Terry, you wrote: > And, at 99% + accuracy, Popfile makes it really easy for me to stick > to my principles. :) This is always the main point that Popfile users stick too. I too (although losing many "good" emails) was assured by Popfile itself that it was doing such a good job why

Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal

Hello MAU, you wrote: > Can I say that I doubt it? :-) Yes, you can, but have you tried SpamPal? I can honestly say I have used both! And Popfile's stats will fool you, believe me I know, I used Popfile. Popfile uses only Bayesian, SpamPal uses a combination of effective spam fighting techniques.

Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello neurowerx, Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 2:32:42 PM, you wrote: nwd> 15-Jul-2003 21:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I don't know about other Bayesian filters but for POPFile, for example >> IP addresses are just "words" that it can use to classify messages. And >> it sure does learn and use IP l

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello Terry, Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 2:03:03 PM, you wrote: T> I use Popfile alone because it *doesn't* use DNS blacklists. I have T> philosophical issues with DNS blacklists. And, at 99% + accuracy, T> Popfile makes it really easy for me to stick to my principles. :) This is not directed at Te

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal

On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 4:19 PM, you wrote: nwd> 15-Jul-2003 22:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work, but because >> I finally noticed that the slowdown in receiving mail was only on the >> accounts that had spampal setup. Now I am back t

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal

15-Jul-2003 22:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work, but because > I finally noticed that the slowdown in receiving mail was only on the > accounts that had spampal setup. Now I am back to getting my mail FAST. I'd say that depends on how freq

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello Dave, > I've got the Known filter first. Sometimes people I want to get > e-mail from will send a note that has spam-like material in it. I > don't want to lose those messages. Loose messages No matter what method, program, filter, whatever, you use to detect

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 2:28:47 PM, Dave Kennedy wrote: DK> Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 3:09:00 PM, MAU wrote: M>> Are you using any filter to sort messages classified as spam M>> by POPFile? If so, this filter should be placed _before_ the M>> Known filter. DK> I'

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal

On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 3:19 PM, you wrote: >> SpamPal also makes less mistakes than PopFile. M> Can SpamPal do much better than 99,71% accuracy? I doubt it, because M> even 100% isn't that much more ;-) well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work, but because I finally notic

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello neurowerx, > Good point. However, I believe that DNS blacklists are updated faster than > popfile will "learn" IP addresses when you teach them manually. I don't teach IPs to POPFile. It learns by itself. The only thing I tell POPFile is if a message it has classified as spam and it isn't,

Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

On Tuesday, July 15, 2003 at 6:38 PM, neurowerx wrote: > I wonder why many people are using Bayes filtering as the only > measure again spam. 95% of the spam I get is being caught by SpamPal > "alone" (DNS blacklist feature). I only use the Bayesian plugin to > Spampal as an addition (the few mail

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

15-Jul-2003 21:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I don't know about other Bayesian filters but for POPFile, for example > IP addresses are just "words" that it can use to classify messages. And > it sure does learn and use IP lists. Good point. However, I believe that DNS blacklists are updated fast

Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 3:09:00 PM, MAU wrote: M> Are you using any filter to sort messages classified as spam M> by POPFile? If so, this filter should be placed _before_ the M> Known filter. I've got the Known filter first. Sometimes people I want to get e-mail from will send a

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal

Hello John, > But imagine my surprise... Now I have to say, without a doubt, that > SpamPal is better than PopFile. Can I say that I doubt it? :-) > SpamPal also makes less mistakes than PopFile. Can SpamPal do much better than 99,71% accuracy? I doubt it, because even 100% isn't that much more

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello neurowerx, > I wonder why many people are using Bayes filtering as the only measure > again spam. 95% of the spam I get is being caught by SpamPal "alone" (DNS > blacklist feature). Because, for example in my case, I'm getting a 99.71 accuracy with POPFile alone which, as you probably know,

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello Dave, > The related problem is some POPFile identified spam is leaking > through, and I suspect that the Inbox-Known filtering is causing > it to trigger. But, I'm not sure of the details of the > Inbox-Known algorithm to debug this issue. Are you using any filter

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

ss out of my address book for that very > reason It's true that spammers sometimes put your email address in one of the "sender" fields, such as Return-Path. Taking your address out of the address book is a bit extreme. A possibly better approach is to disable the filter. Cre

Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal

Hello neurowerx, you wrote: > I wonder why many people are using Bayes filtering as the only measure > again spam. 95% of the spam I get is being caught by SpamPal "alone" (DNS > blacklist feature). I only use the Bayesian plugin to Spampal as an > addition (the few mails that get thru first place

Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 12:52:27 PM, MikeD wrote: M> Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 8:49:16 AM, Dave K wrote: DK>> What is the logic for the "Inbox - Known" automatic DK>> filtering in conjunction with the address book? M> The problem is that enough spammers have figu

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

15-Jul-2003 15:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The related problem is some POPFile identified spam Just a thought about "combined measures"... I wonder why many people are using Bayes filtering as the only measure again spam. 95% of the spam I get is being caught by SpamPal "alone" (DNS blacklist

Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

Hello Dave, Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 8:49:16 AM, you wrote: DK> What is the logic for the "Inbox - Known" automatic filtering in DK> conjunction with the address book? DK> The related problem is some POPFile identified spam is leaking DK> through, and I suspect that the In

Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering

What is the logic for the "Inbox - Known" automatic filtering in conjunction with the address book? The related problem is some POPFile identified spam is leaking through, and I suspect that the Inbox-Known filtering is causing it to trigger. But, I'm not sure of the details of

Re: "BCC to this address" on Account level (was: UnexpectedBehavior of "Known" Filter)

Hello kristina, On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:46:53 +0100 GMT (30/06/03, 20:46 +0700 GMT), kristina wrote: > I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly. But if I am then > TB! already does this (doesn't it)! No. ;-) > I have one folder (well several actually) and all outgoing & incoming > email

Re: "BCC to this address" on Account level (was: UnexpectedBehavior of "Known" Filter)

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, at 12:19:34 [GMT +0700] tbudl wrote: TF> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:35:44 -0500 GMT (28/06/03, 22:35 +0700 GMT), TF> Greg Strong wrote: >> I want to keep running dialog of all email correspondence. I think >> having incorporated into the interface would make it more user >> frie

"BCC to this address" on Account level (was: Unexpected Behavior of"Known" Filter)

Hello Greg, On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:35:44 -0500 GMT (28/06/03, 22:35 +0700 GMT), Greg Strong wrote: > I want to keep running dialog of all email correspondence. I think > having incorporated into the interface would make it more user > friendly. I have a seconder! :-) Now let me find this wishli

Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

On Fri 27-Jun-03 11:06pm -0400, Mark Wieder wrote: BM>> I have AutoCompletion turned BM>> off. I only occasionally use local delivery (I use Alt-N to get me BM>> to the setting page, so Alt-NA toggles it) - and I often like BM>> to edit the outbox for testing. > Maybe I'm being dense today (it

Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

Hello Thomas, On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, at 18:45:10 GMT +0700 (6/28/2003, 6:45 AM -0500 GMT here), you wrote in : > But. If you use AB templates (which I do a lot), you have to add it to > every single template. Well, I did this when I set them up, but I > still thought it would

Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

Hello Coyle306, On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 06:46:01 -0400 GMT (28/06/03, 17:46 +0700 GMT), Coyle306 wrote: TF>> In TB, I have to add the BCC macro to each template. I wish I TF>> could activate such a feature on Account level, as I could in TF>> Netscape. TF>> Any seconders? > Nah. It's pretty easy to

Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

>> I bcc: myself all the time. Doesn't everybody? TF> I used to. Namely when I was replying to private mails while I was in TF> the office; when I bcc'ed myself, I could download my replies at home TF> as well. I started this practice when I was still using Netscape Mail, TF> and that client has

Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

Bill- Friday, June 27, 2003, 12:21:56 PM, you wrote: BM> We all work a little differently, Mark. BM> I have AutoCompletion turned BM> off. I only occasionally use local delivery (I use Alt-N to get me BM> to the setting page, so Alt-NA toggles it) - and I often like BM> to edit the outbox f

Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

Hello Coyle306, On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:07:12 -0400 GMT (27/06/03, 18:07 +0700 GMT), Coyle306 wrote: > I bcc: myself all the time. Doesn't everybody? I used to. Namely when I was replying to private mails while I was in the office; when I bcc'ed myself, I could download my replies at home as wel

Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

On Fri 27-Jun-03 1:09pm -0400, Mark Wieder wrote: > I test-send myself stuff all the time, too, but I never considered > putting myself in the AB. Since I have local delivery turned on, > sending mail to my local accounts is instantaneous. Then I have some > external webmail accounts so I can see

Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

Bill- I test-send myself stuff all the time, too, but I never considered putting myself in the AB. Since I have local delivery turned on, sending mail to my local accounts is instantaneous. Then I have some external webmail accounts so I can see the kludges. -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.63 Be

Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

MW> Of course, at this point I suppose I should bring up the question of MW> why your own address is in your address book? If it weren't then the MW> correct filtering event would have occurred... I bcc: myself all the time. Doesn't everybody? I appreciate the responses on this subject, and I

Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

On Fri 27-Jun-03 1:23am -0400, Dave Kennedy wrote: > On Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:54 PM, Bill wrote: >> I don't like the Know filter at all and don't use it because of its >> bugs on replying from Inbox-Known. > What bugs? There's an inconvenience (no folder

Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

ut not one's own address, one can use a "normal" filter for that and choose the destination (instead of no choice but Inbox-Known). -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

Hello Mark, Thursday, June 26, 2003, 11:34:52 PM, you wrote: MW> Of course, at this point I suppose I should bring up the question of MW> why your own address is in your address book? If it weren't then the MW> correct filtering event would have occurred... well I have to admit i send stuff to

Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

Coyle306- Thursday, June 26, 2003, 3:13:24 PM, you wrote: C> spammer had inserted _my address_, which _is_ in my address book. Of course, at this point I suppose I should bring up the question of why your own address is in your address book? If it weren't then the correct filtering event would

Re: [bat] Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

On Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:54 PM, Bill wrote: BM> I don't like the Know filter at all and don't use it because of its BM> bugs on replying from Inbox-Known. What bugs? Dave Kennedy Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBU

Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

On Thu 26-Jun-03 6:13pm -0400, Coyle306 wrote: > Quoting from the Sorting Office window: "The Known filter allows you > to separate incoming mail by the presence of the _sender's address_ in > your address book" (My emphasis) Right - notice that it does not say "Fr

Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

MM> Hmmm ... what should not work which way? It seems to me that if an MM> email is received with a 'from address' that is in your address MM> book it should be sent to the 'known' box. Just out of curiosity MM> ... what would you expect to work differe

Re: Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

Hello Coyle306, Thursday, June 26, 2003, 6:07:42 AM, you wrote: C> All I could think of was that the spammer's sticking _my_ address in C> the "Reply-To:" and/or the "X-RCPT-TO:" somehow fooled the Known C> filter, since _my_ address was in my addres

Unexpected Behavior of "Known" Filter

I'm using 1.63 Beta 11 with Windows 98. I have the "Known" filter activated, and I have it move "knowns" to a sub-folder of the Inbox, "Inbox\Known". Otherwise, they go to another sub-folder of the Inbox, "Inbox\Unknown". Worked great un

Re: Known filter question

threads). And yes, it helps indentifying spam, it is the last filter. Anything incoming that was not filtered into other folders by now, will be sent to "Known", and what remains in the Inbox is almost exclusively spam. I am not hampered by any short-comings here. It is a simple and str

Re: Known filter question

positives. I still filter all my known mail. I then filter the only the remaining mail for Spampal's spam header. I started using SpamPal since most of my spam is now addressed directly to me. This wasn't the case in the past where I could safely assume that once a me

Re: Known filter question

Hello Allie, On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 at 19:15:22[GMT -0500](which was 00:15 where I live) you wrote: > As a part of spam filtering. Ah, Spampal works a treat for me thanks. > I wonder about the usefulness of the filter myself. I guess it's a > means of making such a filtering method more a

Re: Known filter question

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Wakeford [RW] wrote:' RW> I've often wondered at the usefulness of the "Known" folder and, RW> noticing that you can only choose one folder to send message

Re: Known filter question

Hello Allie, On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 at 06:19:52[GMT -0500](which was 11:19 where I live) you wrote: > To get things working the way you wish, I suggest using the INBOX as >your Inbox-Known folder, deactivate the Inbox-Known filter, and >creating a new incoming filter with the

Re: Known filter question

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kristina [K] wrote:' K> Since enabling the Known filter, everything does get filtered into K> the Known box, but it doesn't carry on, although I have ticked K> continue

Known filter question

Hello TBUDL listers, Since joining this list (only a couple of weeks ago) I have learnt heaps, and my only regret is not subscribing sooner..! Also since joining I have learnt what the Known folder is for... - before I wasn't really sure so didn't investigate (more fool me

Re: Index known - how to create?

ll result in the sound being made for each message ACM> that matches the filter. With the folder configured to make the ACM> sound, the sound will be made only once, each time new messages are ACM> filtered to it. Only problem here: you cannot enable sound on Inbox-Known. So you'll have

Re: Index known - how to create?

ON Monday, November 25, 2002, 7:04:56 PM, you wrote: ACM> The filter way will result in the sound being made for each message ACM> that matches the filter. With the folder configured to make the ACM> sound, the sound will be made only once, each time new messages are ACM> filtered to it. Hi Allie

Re: Index known - how to create?

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roelof Otten [RO] wrote:' RO> Nope! You can create a new filter that does the same as the RO> known-filter, but also plays a sound. When you're doing that, RO> you can disable the known-filter. It's better t

Re: Index known - how to create?

ON Monday, November 25, 2002, 6:17:28 PM, you wrote: TF> Apologies for asking a question that I know has been asked before (I TF> can't find the answer in my archives), but how do I *create* the index TF> known folder? I deleted it when the feature was first introduced, but TF> n

Re: Index known - how to create?

Hallo Tim, On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:17:28 +GMT (25-11-02, 18:17 +0100GMT, where I live), you wrote: TF> how do I *create* the index known folder? I suppose you mean 'Inbox - Known' Create a new folder, call it $KNOWN$ and you're done. TF> Also, is it possible to modify t

Index known - how to create?

Apologies for asking a question that I know has been asked before (I can't find the answer in my archives), but how do I *create* the index known folder? I deleted it when the feature was first introduced, but now I'd quite like to get it back. Also, is it possible to modify the filt

Re: 'Known' Filter and adding address book

Hallo Doug, On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:25:07 +0100GMT (2-10-02, 23:25 +0200GMT, where I live), you wrote: DW>>> I can't see how to add an address book to this. >> You can't add address books to the known filter. It only uses the >> default AB. DW> They are all in

Re: 'Known' Filter and adding address book

Hi Roelof, Wednesday, October 2, 2002, 9:58:29 PM, you wrote: > Hallo Doug, > On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 21:32:18 +0100GMT (2-10-02, 22:32 +0200GMT, where > I live), you wrote: DW>> I can't see how to add an address book to this. > You can't add address books to the kn

Re: 'Known' Filter and adding address book

Hallo Doug, On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 21:32:18 +0100GMT (2-10-02, 22:32 +0200GMT, where I live), you wrote: DW> I can't see how to add an address book to this. You can't add address books to the known filter. It only uses the default AB. I can remember discussions on this list why s

Re:'Known' Filter and adding address book

Hi Doug. At 4:32 PM on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 you [DW] wrote the following about ''Known' Filter and adding address book': DW> I can't see how to add an address book to this. Nothing in the DW> help file, couldn't find anything in the archives useful. D

'Known' Filter and adding address book

I can't see how to add an address book to this. Nothing in the help file, couldn't find anything in the archives useful. I'm on version 1.61 at the moment, haven't used any betas for a while. Thanks. Doug -- Doug's Archaeology Site http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk _

Re: inbox-known ?

Sh'mae Andy, On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, at 23:52:31 [GMT +0100] (23:52 where I live) you wrote: AM> Hello list AM> Probably a stupid question, but what is the purpose of the AM> "Inbox-Known" folder which was created automatically on AM> installation? There is

inbox-known ?

Hello list Probably a stupid question, but what is the purpose of the "Inbox-Known" folder which was created automatically on installation? -- Best regards, Andy Current version is 1.61 | &q

Re: Known folder

Date: 18 July 2002, Time: 22:47 Hi Peter, On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, at 23:39:56 [GMT +0200] (22:39 where I live) you wrote: PP> Hello Adam, PP> On Thursday, July 18, 2002 at 11:23:46 PM you [AR] wrote (at least in PP> part): AR>> Can anyone remind me how to recreate t

Re: Known folder

Hello Adam, On Thursday, July 18, 2002 at 11:23:46 PM you [AR] wrote (at least in part): AR> Can anyone remind me how to recreate the Known folder? Create a new folder and name it '$KNOWN$' (w/o single quotes). -- Regards Peter Palmreuthermailto:[EM

Known folder

Date: 18 July 2002, Time: 22:23 Hi tbudl, Can anyone remind me how to recreate the Known folder? TIA A -- [ Adam Rykala ] [ www.new-wales.net ] [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ I thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong.. ] Current

Re: Restoring 'Inbox - Known'

On Monday, June 17, 2002, 18:21, Joseph N. wrote: > I cannot delete the filter. The folder's long gone, and the 'remove' > button in the Sorting Office is grayed out for the 'Known' filter. Same here. I think I deleted it somewhere during the beta series, ha

Re: "Inbox - Known" Folder? WHAT ARE THESE FOLKS THINKING?

reated a lot less havoc among TB users, AND generated a lot more > business in these spam-crazed times - would have been for Ritlabs to create > a folder called "unknown" for all the spam... and to implement an easy, > customer-friendly way to customize it. Which is the Inbox

Re: "Inbox - Known" Folder? WHAT ARE THESE FOLKS THINKING?

Hey Miles, My MUA believes you used The Bat! (v1.53d) Personal to write the following on Friday, June 14, 2002 at 3:03:31 PM. TM>> [+] The incoming mail filter for moving messages from TM>> known senders to a special folder so the Inbox can be left for TM>> unknown sender

Re[3]: "Inbox - Known" Folder? WHAT ARE THESE FOLKS THINKING?

It seems that Miles Johnson said ... M> I'm sticking to 1.53... Do others feel the same way? In a word, no. Using The Bat! v1.60q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 -- Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 6/14/2002 at 3:31 PM Technology Corner on Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio

Re[2]: "Inbox - Known" Folder? WHAT ARE THESE FOLKS THINKING?

TM> [+] The incoming mail filter for moving messages from known TM> senders to a special folder so the Inbox can be left for unknown TM> senders and spam :-) Well I've been trying to figure this out ever since it was implemented, seen all kinds of people upset about this... It bo

Re: "Inbox - Known" Folder?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Tim, @14 June 2002, 11:20:14 -0400 (16:20 UK time) Tim Musson wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JA>> As this question has been asked several times... might it not be a JA>> nice addition to add to the FAQ (whoever maintains it?) ;

Re: "Inbox - Known" Folder?

Hey Jonathan, My MUA believes you used The Bat! (v1.60c) Personal to write the following on Friday, June 14, 2002 at 11:16:22 AM. JA> As this question has been asked several times... might it not be a JA> nice addition to add to the FAQ (whoever maintains it?) ;) Not a bad idea... Marck?

Re: "Inbox - Known" Folder?

Hey Alan, My MUA believes you used The Bat! (v1.60q) Personal to write the following on Friday, June 14, 2002 at 10:43:56 AM. AL> Using The Bat! v1.60q on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 AL> I just upgraded to 1.60q, and it created a folder named "Inbox - AL> Known" in each o

Re: "Inbox - Known" Folder?

On Friday, June 14, 2002, Alan Little wrote... > Using The Bat! v1.60q on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 > I just upgraded to 1.60q, and it created a folder named "Inbox - > Known" in each of my accounts, just above the Inbox standard folder. > What is this for? I can'

"Inbox - Known" Folder?

Using The Bat! v1.60q on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 I just upgraded to 1.60q, and it created a folder named "Inbox - Known" in each of my accounts, just above the Inbox standard folder. What is this for? I can't find anything about it in the documentation. -- Alan Little Holot

Re: Inbox - Known (was: What happened to Help?)

Hello Thomas! On Wednesday, May 22, 2002 at 8:07:31 AM you wrote: MSG>> and how I get rid of it if I don't want it? > Don't know. For all those who couldn't follow the lists in the past few weeks - and those that don't know what an archive is: Got to your Sorting Office and disable the filte

Inbox - Known (was: What happened to Help?)

Hello Michael, On Tue, 21 May 2002 18:25:04 -0700 GMT (22/05/02, 08:25 +0700 GMT), Michael S. Greenbaum wrote: MSG> Is this a problem on my computer or with the program? It's not a problem, it's a new feature. MSG> Meanwhile, can anyone tell me what this Inbox-Known is, why

Re[4]: Bug? -- 1.60 Inbox-Known Deletion Causes Filtering Error [SOLVED]

Ta-dah! I've found the cause and thought I should share with community and developers, so here goes. Many thanks to all that responded with ideas, too! It turns out that during some aspect of the upgrade process from 1.53d through 1.60h to 1.60j (current), and/or deleting my "Inb

Re: separate Inbox-Known for each address book

Hello John. At 1:03 PM on Friday, May 03, 2002 you wrote the following about [separate Inbox-Known for each address book]: John> I've split my address book into two - work folks and John> personal folks. Can I make an "Inbox - Known" rule for John> each address book?

Re[3]: Bug? -- 1.60 Inbox-Known Deletion Causes Filtering Error

On Sun, 5 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Jonathan, > > JA> Not sure if this is helpful... Have you made sure that you have > JA> the "Continue processing" set? I cannot remember the full name. It > JA> may have become switched off some how... and as soon as it hits > JA> that rule, it has no

Re[3]: Bug? -- 1.60 Inbox-Known Deletion Causes Filtering Error

Jonathan, JA> Not sure if this is helpful... Have you made sure that you have JA> the "Continue processing" set? I cannot remember the full name. It JA> may have become switched off some how... and as soon as it hits JA> that rule, it has no reason to continue processing. The problem is actually

<    1   2   3   >