Re: Stop processing more rules

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Roady [MVP] (newsgroups_DELETE__at__DELETE_sparnaaij_NO_._SPAM_net)
Date: 06/24/04 

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:42:28 +0200

Each message will be checked against your rules
If you have more then one rule it will be checked against the rule from top
rule to the bottom rule
If a rule applies the action will be performed and the next rule will fire.
If this applies as well both rules will be executed
To prevent several rules from being executed against the same message
arrange your rules in what rule should fire first and add the "stop
processing more rules" condition
When all the rules have been fired or one message they will fire for the
next message till all messages are received.

When you delete (not permanently delete) the mail is actually being moved to
the Deleted Items folder so you can still apply rules to it like flags or
mark it as read. 

-- 
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
www.howto-outlook.com
Tips of the month:
-Backup and Restore
-Create an Office XP CD slipstreamed with Service Pack 3
-----
"vladwiel" <vladwiel@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message 
news:6059AF85-3FB5-47BA-AD8C-89181279505C@microsoft.com...
> Sorry, but this logic somehow escapes me...  Does this mean that every 
> message gets checked against all 127 rules I have set up?? What's the 
> point?  I assumed that the "Stop processing rules" applied to every 
> message after that one, not to the deleted message. Why doesn't it then 
> apply to a rule with "Delete it" in the same way? If I deleted it, what 
> else would I want do do with it?? Flag it?? Forward it??
> Or maybe it should say, "Stop processing any further directives in *this* 
> rule"?  This would make sense. Maybe this is only a naming issue? 
> Microsoft said "rules" but it really meant "directives within a rule"?
> (Please note that it seems very clear that a "Rule" in Outlook parlance 
> means "a set of directives triggered by a condition". So "Rules" would 
> refer to multiple such sets, wouldn't it?)
> However, even if this interpretation is true, it is highly illogical in 
> practice. I just checked and was able to select a whole bunch of actions 
> in addition to "Delete it permanently". They all got inserted *above* the 
> "stop processing more rules" directive, so presumambly they will all be 
> performed. So the only thing I'm prevented from doing is applying 
> exceptions to the rule, which is the next step. Yes, I can imagine a 
> situation when I would want to allow exceptions in regard to messages I 
> want deleted permanently. Can't you?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Caching and PageLoad event
    ... > If I turn on the caching for a page with the following directive: ... > will the Page_Load event always fire? ... > retrieved from the database and would like to avoid retrieving it every ... using page directives. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: Arm gnu directive assembler problem
    ... The names in the linker script have to match the names in the ... This is one of the ELF section stack manipulation directives. ... The optional FLAGS argument is a quoted string which may contain any ... the assembler supports another type of `.section' ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: /LARGEADDRESSAWARE option - can someone please post this to QualityCentral
    ... There's a full list of flags you can use here-- ... Here's the documentation for $SetPEFlags and $SetPEOptFlags from Delphi ... by these directives. ... it's not an error to place these directives in unit source ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: #defines
    ... compilation only. ... The [Flags] attribute is a hint for the compiler that binary operations (&, ... > directives for the purposes of defining bit mask definitions such as the ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)