Hello Allie, On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:16:52 -0500 GMT (23/02/03, 22:16 +0700 GMT), Allie Martin wrote:
TF>> No it isn't. If I add any filter string, for example an email address TF>> or a key word, I won't have to go to all accounts. I would update only TF>> at one place. That's the point. > Yes, I know but: OK, you got my point. :-) > My point is that every time someone asks how to make all message > list columns look the same, we have to start off by saying, 'I'm > afraid that you'll have to first go through all folders I agree with you here, but while it is not unusual for people to have 100 folders, I cannot see why anyone would have 100 accounts. > With your model, for each filter, I'd have to go to each account I > wish to add it and then place the filter etc. Not much different > from the current method of initial setup. I know that subsequent > modification of the filter would be made easier. The subsequent modification is my point, yes. > A 'paste-linked' (name just invented <g>) option would do what you > want. Yes, but I would find a central location, like for QTs, better. Matter of taste, maybe. TF>> Please explain how this should work. Let's say under Options I have TF>> a menu item "Global filters", and I create a filter there. What TF>> would it do? > I just created a filter that I wanted global. I created one that > would move messages containing a particular string to a particular > common folder. I want it run on all accounts. I had to copy it to > each accounts incoming filter set. It would have been nice to just > create the filter as a global one and that's it. No having to open > other accounts and adding it. I see your point, too. TF>> Could I except accounts from this filter or from all global filters, TF>> like I can with "check all"? > Yes, this would be necessary. This would make it complicated. For each global filter, there would have to be an option in each account to not apply it. Then, in some accounts, I would it applied at the top, in others at the bottom, and again in others somehwere in between. > However, I dislike the concept of still having to go to each account > and inserting what's supposed to be a global filter. It's not really > global then .. more common. The difference between our concepts is just the default setting. In my version, the default is "do not apply", and you have to set "apply" in the accounts were it should be applied. In your version, it is applied in all accounts, and you would have to set "do not apply" were it shouldn't be. TF>> This is what I am doing, and it is troublesome to have to add the TF>> same address as an alternative filter string to several filters TF>> across various accounts. > Exactly. It's not nice having to do it when it isn't necessary. We agree on this one? -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Sex is hereditary. If your parents never had it, chances are you won't either. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.63 Beta/5 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 2222 A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
