Subject: Filters rerun when you save to another folder (good!)

From: Matt Ackeret <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:27:21 -0800 (PST)

In retrospect, this is pretty obvious, but it's pretty cool.

I guess a few of the mailing lists I'm on changed addresses, because this
morning I had a whole bunch of messages put into my suspected_spam folder.
(If I nor any of my mailing lists are Recipients of the new message, it's
put into suspected_spam.)

So, I fixed my setscores rule(*)..  Then, since I wanted the messages in
my INBOX, I did a select-all, which included a few real spam messages, and
saved to my INBOX.

I immediately had 2 new messages in my suspected_spam folder, which was
surprising at first.

But they're really messages that *really are* spam, and thus still don't
fit my filtering rules... so they failed again, and were put in suspected_spam
again.

Again, I realize this is now pretty obvious, but maybe others didn't realize
it easier.  So this is an easy way to "test" rules and filters and such, save
a bunch of messages, with some matching and not maching the filter, and you'll
get immediate results to see if it worked properly.

(*) To unfortunately add one bit of negativity, it really would be much
simpler to just be able to make one *filter* that checks recipients and then
moves non-matching to a folder, rather than this two step "set scores then
filter on scores) setup, which is good, but I think more complicated than a
lot of people need.  I don't mean complicated as in "hard to understand", just
overblown.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Steve Hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:04:40 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Matt Ackeret wrote:

> [...]

We agree. It would be really nice if there was a NOT in the rules
definitions so that this would be easier.

Steve Hubert

---

From: Matt Ackeret <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:12:29 -0800 (PST)

>definitions so that this would be easier.

You're right.  At first I wasn't sure how that would help, but looking at
the filter setup screen, adding a NOT would solve all of my problems..

I could just make one filter that was effectively:

Recip pattern   = NOT([email-masked],[email-masked], etc..)

Filter Action   =
            Set    Choose One
            ---  --------------------
            ( )  Just Set Message Status
            ( )  Delete
            (*)  Move (Enter folder name(s) in primary collection, or use ^T)
                 Folder List = {area.com}suspected_spam

that would solve my problems.  (and I used "NOT" rather than "!" to make
it hopefully more understandable to new users)

As a separate issue, I noticed that my most recent Schwab emails are showing
up as:

    [ Part 1, Text/PLAIN  202 lines. ]
    [ Not Shown. Use the "V" command to view or save this part. ]

    [ Part 2, Text/HTML  485 lines. ]
    [ Not Shown. Use the "V" command to view or save this part. ]

and it's not just showing me the text-plain part automatically.  This is
on pine 4.33 (on this personal acct)..

Would this be solved by getting them to upgrade it?

Oh, and as long as I'm mentioning all of the problems, I can't view by
thread on this acct either, because it ends up closing the folder..  I think
this is because they're using qmail??  It works fine on my work acct (with 4.40)

---

From: Joel Boonstra <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:52:51 -0500 (EST)

<snip>
> Recip pattern   = NOT([email-masked],[email-masked], etc..)

If you're looking to eliminate spam, someone pointed this procmail recipe
out to me:

  http://www.johncon.com/john/StochasticUCEDetection/

I have not tried it, because my company has a spam/virus prevention
system, but it sounds like it's quite effective.  I'd be curious to know
if it works, but I realize this isn't really on-topic anymore.  Just
thought I'd pass it along.

-- 
[ joel boonstra | [email-masked] ]