At this point I need to make sure that you (and everyone else) know that I am NOT "attacking" in seeking the answers to this question. Though my fictitious example may be lame, the question (I think) deserves a definitive answer (not necessarily by you, of course). I only seek the truth!
rg>> Seriously, 2 words does not a complex search make. If I need to rg>> *RELIABLY* find the email where I invited JANIS to the DANCE (only rg>> want emails where BOTH those words exist): PC> personally, I'd probably do the search differently. Either just on PC> JANIS, or use the FROM:, put my name in, then use JANIS as the search. I don't think you *can* put your name in the FROM and JANIS as the search term. Can you? In my example, assume I've sent Janis many hundreds of emails, the dance was probably over a year ago, and I invited hundreds of folks to this dance. The only sane and reliable way to quickly find that one message I seek is to do an AND search. I am (as I am SURE others are) seeking the answer to why one search works one way and another the other way. rg>> 1) how should I enter the search strings? Is example 1 or 2 above rg>> correct? They report different matches! PC> my test showed 17 return emails on one method, 18 on the other, so they PC> were probably the same for 90+% of the search. This is the root question then! What is the difference between the 2 versions (with vs w/o spaces around the &) of the search syntax? With hundreds (or more) of hits 90% isn't good enough. rg>> 2) Is it different from version to version? PC> I can't answer that, did you check the beta archives for SEARCH? I think it may be. -- Rich ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
