> Do you think we could sort the Sorting Rules somehow? One sort is the > order in which they were added. Another is alphabetical order.
Dangerous! (...at least for me!) My rules are IF? THEN! ELSE!! based. Sorting then around alfabetically would be THEN what IF...HUH!? DOH! > Another might be hierarchical grouping. That I support - for example, I have 10 antispamrules (clever stuff!), and I would certainly like to put them into a group and name that group something relevant, like "JunkShield" etc. Soumething you didn't mention: The Sorting Office "editor" needs to be BIGGER. Todays "editor" is a rather small box that forces you to scroll left-right and up-down more than you should. For example, when you name rules, you have to use rather short names in order to display them so they show without having to scroll - an example: "JunkShield Spamvestigater (General - Kludges)" and "JunkShield Spamvestigater (General - Anyhere)" are both displayed as "JunkShield Spamvestigater (Gen" I host 6 mailing lists on my PC (!) - with 35 smart rules for each list (and they all have equal leftstart, like "Korg Triton Mailing List"), that small box is indeed a problem. Even on a 1024 screen that box is much smaller than it should be - the size is a waste! Another thing you didn't mention is the way TB handles Copy. When copying a rule you most often want to put that rule close to the one you copied from. So say you have 100 rules and you copy from 22; why isn't that copied rule just pasted into position 23 and the other rules below it is properly subordinated. Why not?!? Or better, when you copy (CTRL+C) then TB should allow you to scroll up and down an paste (CTRL+V) the rule exactly where you want it. Furthermore, there is a bug when copying rules around: Sometimes the name is deleted and the copied rule is named "New rule" - VERY COOL? The rules...are they handling BASE64 propery - _always_? More often than not, spam enters my mailbox as BASE64 or other MIME, and though certain words are present in the text portion of the message, TB fails to see that. That also applies for the Search function. Another "bug" (that I created a workaround for) is how TB handles the addressbooks. If you program your rules well, TB can provide you with an excellent mailinglist server. BUT there are things that you will need to bug yourself around - for example: The parameter "Address(es) must be listed in the addressbook", it allows you to enter more than one addressbook handle. That's fine, but the problem is that when you enter more than one addressbook, ie. "m-emusaic-r+m-emusaic-d" (supposedly to look in addressbooks of "m-emusaic-r" and "m-emusaic-d", the rules expect the address to be present in them BOTH, and not in EITHER. I found a way around that - it is not relevant to explain it here, but I find it to be an anomaly Ritlabs should address (pun?)! And there's more: "Export message to file" - the rule is not complete what MIME based messages regards. If you use macroes %HEADERS and %TEXT, a message that has (for example) BASE64 will export HEADERS correctly, but is not the _text_ of the message, it is the BASE64 portion. The real _text_ is not exported! I would like TB to understand that when a message has MIME in, then TB should export the real text and the MIME code. Suggestion for Ritlabs: Add a macro %SOURCE - %SOURCE would then give you an exact copy of the message - just like F9. Got It? I would "Export message to file" to be able export complete messages _separately_ as ASCII text. In current version one can only export to a file and overwrite it or append to it. But "Export..." cannot create files with names based on Message-ID or Subject, for example. Is there more... Sure! But now I hand the baton to the next guy! :) / St ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
