Re: Rules order not followed
From: *Vanguard* (no-email_at_no-spam.invalid)
Date: 02/24/04
- Next message: *Vanguard*: "Re: Outlook 2003 stuck in offline mode?"
- Previous message: Jennifer: "Outlook 2002 Converts Everything to Plain Text"
- Maybe in reply to: Frank Lamers: "Rules order not followed"
- Next in thread: Frank Lamers: "Re: Rules order not followed"
- Reply: Frank Lamers: "Re: Rules order not followed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:44:47 -0600
"Frank Lamers" said in news:eyS8yWs%23DHA.4012@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
> To flag a message in a color is a rule which should be processed
> first.
Must be a new rule action defined in Outlook 2003. I'm using Outlook 2002
and do not have a rule that will "flag message with <color>". I color code
my messages by customizing the view in the folder. If there is some new
color coding rule in OL2003, might be it really doesn't work reliably.
I don't understand the "only on this machine" clause. It doesn't make sense
to me so I've never used it, but then I always yank my e-mails from the same
host. The only KB article I saw mention of this clause was # 278089 where
it said, "..., unless you use this rule parameter, all rules are active no
matter what computer you use for mail access." So I guess *where* you
define rule dictates where it will get used (i.e., enabled). If you use
roaming profiles and login on a different host than where you defined the
rule then the rule will be inactive and not exercised against your messages.
I suppose this clause has some use but I have never defined a rule that only
sometimes gets executed against my messages depending on which host I run
Outlook to yank my e-mails. Could be this is the problem. Did you define
the rule on host_A but are running Outlook on host_B?
> 1. Rule:
> Receiving a message
> with "X-Spam-Status: Yes" in a Headline
> only on this machine
> flag message with Red
> except the sender is in addressbook Contacts
You can probably leave out the except clause. Since there is no stop clause
in this rule, the next rule will change the color to green for known senders
regardless of whether or not the message got colored by this rule.
Also, why bother running subsequent rules once you know a message is
[probably] spam? It's spam so you don't want it marked green because then
all you'll know is the message came from a known sender, not that it is spam
from a known sender. Or maybe you do receive spam from known senders (i.e.,
in your address book). Since you are not deleting this message but instead
just marking it red, don't you want to know that it is spam whether or not a
known sender sent it? To me, it seems a stop clause is missing in this
rule. Once it is spam, it's spam, and you want to know it's spam despite
who sent it.
>
> 2. Rule:
> Receiving a message
> whose sender is in addressbook Contacts
> only on this machine
> flag message with Green
Nothing special here (except the "only on this machine" clause). Do you
want a different set of rules exercised against your messages depending on
which host you run Outlook? If you defined this rule while logged onto
host_A and then use Outlook on host_B, this rule is inactive when you are on
host_B.
> 3. Rule:
> Receiving a message
> sent to NTBUGTRAQLISTSERV.NTBUGTRAQ.COM
> move to folder NTBugTraq
> and process no more rules
Unless you have whitelisted this sender in your anti-spam software, or to
prevent it from getting colored red because it got detected as spam, move
this rule to the top of the list. Whitelist rules should be at the top of
the list (and include the stop clause, which you have here).
>
> 4. Rule:
> Receiving a message
> with "[SPAM]" in Subject
> only on this machine
> move to folder Junk-E-Mail
> except the sender is in addressbook All Address Lists
> process no more rules
Looks like you have 2 anti-spam programs, or the one anti-spam program is
inserting both a header (which you detect in rule #1) and also inserting the
"[SPAM]" tag in the Subject header.
Seems like this rule should be positioned right after rule #2. Rule #1
should also have the stop clause since there's no point in doubly checking
if a message is spam. Once it gets detected as spam by one anti-spam
product, you don't need to again check if it is spam in the other anti-spam
product. Once you swat the mosquito, you don't have to swat it again.
> 5.Rule:
> Receiving a message
> by account KANT
> only on this machine
> move to folder Junk-E-Mail
> and process no more rules
I'm confused on this one. Presumably you meant "through the 'Kant' account"
where 'Kant' is the name of an account you have defined in Outlook. This
means all messages sent to your Kant account are considered junk. Why
bother yanking e-mails from an account on your ISP that you deem will only
contain junk mails? Just don't yank them at all.
Shouldn't this rule be move up along with rule #4 so they both are
positioned after the spam-catch rule #1? That is, I would think you would
have the spam-catch rules together as: 'with "X-Spam-Status: Yes"', followed
by 'with "[SPAM]" in Subject', followed by 'through the Kant account', and
each with a stop clause (you only need to step on spam or junk mails once;
there's no point in OR'ing the spam-catch rules since once it is caught then
you don't need to re-catch it).
- Next message: *Vanguard*: "Re: Outlook 2003 stuck in offline mode?"
- Previous message: Jennifer: "Outlook 2002 Converts Everything to Plain Text"
- Maybe in reply to: Frank Lamers: "Rules order not followed"
- Next in thread: Frank Lamers: "Re: Rules order not followed"
- Reply: Frank Lamers: "Re: Rules order not followed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
