Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #47954 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bob smith <bob@coolfone.comze.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-08-23 16:42 -0700 |
| Last post | 2013-09-15 02:26 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 88 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
alternative mail clients for Mac bob smith <bob@coolfone.comze.com> - 2013-08-23 16:42 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-08-23 16:51 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-08-24 15:13 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2013-08-23 16:53 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac billy@MIX.COM - 2013-08-24 15:25 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-08-25 02:32 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac billy@MIX.COM - 2013-09-01 01:12 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac billy@MIX.COM - 2013-09-07 23:15 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2013-08-24 23:12 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-08-23 18:32 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac howdy@doody.com - 2013-08-24 07:01 -0500
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-09-02 12:41 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac William Munny <will@bigwhisky.net> - 2013-08-24 17:24 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-09-01 14:28 +1200
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-08-31 23:03 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2013-08-31 20:29 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-09-01 15:33 +1200
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-01 00:23 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-09-01 00:38 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-01 00:54 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-08-31 21:55 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-09-02 01:15 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-01 22:46 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-09-01 22:22 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-02 08:22 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-09-02 08:56 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-02 10:02 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-09-02 14:28 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-09-02 17:02 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-02 17:45 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-09-03 10:41 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-03 10:46 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-09-03 12:37 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2013-09-03 09:49 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-09-03 10:04 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-09-03 13:47 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-09-03 15:28 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2013-09-03 12:33 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-09-03 17:48 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2013-09-03 14:52 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-04 04:28 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-09-03 15:25 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-09-03 20:49 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-09-03 17:59 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-09-03 19:17 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac billy@MIX.COM - 2013-09-04 02:50 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2013-09-04 03:20 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-09-03 20:57 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac billy@MIX.COM - 2013-09-04 15:38 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-09-04 00:02 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-04 04:28 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-09-04 17:00 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-09-04 21:48 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-04 04:28 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-09-04 09:39 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-09-04 22:00 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-05 07:08 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-05 07:08 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-09-04 21:42 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2013-09-04 16:14 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-03 13:18 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-09-03 15:31 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-04 04:28 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-09-05 01:42 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-05 07:08 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-09-06 21:10 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-09-02 22:45 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-09-02 09:18 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-02 17:33 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-09-02 18:39 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-02 20:12 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-09-02 20:24 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac mcarels@xs4all.nl (Maarten Carels) - 2013-09-03 10:12 +0200
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-09-03 16:40 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-09-03 15:21 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-09-03 20:42 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac billy@MIX.COM - 2013-09-02 04:39 +0000
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-09-02 12:45 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac "Red Ryder" <r.Ryder@aol.com> - 2013-09-14 10:55 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-09-14 10:12 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-09-14 13:45 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-09-14 12:56 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-09-14 17:21 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac "Red Ryder" <rRyder@brightnet.net> - 2013-09-14 19:08 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac "Red Ryder" <rRyder@aol.com> - 2013-09-14 16:17 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-09-14 13:45 -0700
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac "Red Ryder" <rRyder@brightnet.net> - 2013-09-14 19:07 -0400
Re: alternative mail clients for Mac Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-09-15 02:26 +0000
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-08-31 21:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vilain-D0C1E3.21554331082013@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #48134 |
In article <010920130023550875%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <1l8iz73.11a0f0du9sjswN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: > > > > > But what exactly do you find buggy about Apple Mail? I'm still using OS > > > > X 10.6.8, but maybe others can assist with newer versions. > > > > > > filters don't work properly. > > > > In what regard? > > it's incompatible with postfix, which can pre-sort mail into folders by > using a + and a folder name, such as abc+apple@myisp.com. it's a great > way to instantly create a new email folder for a sender and to track > the source who leaked the email address to spammers. > > apple mail ignores imap folders other than the inbox, regardless of the > email never having been seen by apple mail or being unread. apparently > nobody at apple ever heard of postfix, which is used by many isps and > in particular, a little known service called gmail, which they must not > use either. > > what apple mail should do is apply filters to *all* new mail, > regardless of which folder it's in. if apple mail sees new mail on the > isp that it hasn't seen before, it should be eligible for filtering. Sound like a great beginning on the next Sparrow Mail. Why not code it, test it, and just before it's ready to be released, have Google buy your company? You'll be rich. -- DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-02 01:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnl27pm4.28me.g.kreme@mbp55.local> |
| In reply to | #48137 |
In message <vilain-D0C1E3.21554331082013@news.individual.net> Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote: > In article <010920130023550875%nospam@nospam.invalid>, > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> In article <1l8iz73.11a0f0du9sjswN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie >> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote: >> >> > > > But what exactly do you find buggy about Apple Mail? I'm still using OS >> > > > X 10.6.8, but maybe others can assist with newer versions. >> > > >> > > filters don't work properly. >> > >> > In what regard? >> >> it's incompatible with postfix, which can pre-sort mail into folders by >> using a + and a folder name, such as abc+apple@myisp.com. it's a great >> way to instantly create a new email folder for a sender and to track >> the source who leaked the email address to spammers. Bull. I do that all the time. >> apple mail ignores imap folders other than the inbox, regardless of the >> email never having been seen by apple mail or being unread. apparently >> nobody at apple ever heard of postfix, which is used by many isps and >> in particular, a little known service called gmail, which they must not >> use either. That is untrue. I have HUNDREDS of folders on my IMAP stores. >> what apple mail should do is apply filters to *all* new mail, No, that would be a *terrible* idea. If the mail is sorted server-side there is no reason to sort it on the client. >> regardless of which folder it's in. if apple mail sees new mail on the >> isp that it hasn't seen before, it should be eligible for filtering. No, that is completely wrong-headed. > You'll be rich. :) -- Kickboxing. Sport of the future.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-01 22:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <010920132246475172%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #48149 |
In article <slrnl27pm4.28me.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > >> it's incompatible with postfix, which can pre-sort mail into folders by > >> using a + and a folder name, such as abc+apple@myisp.com. it's a great > >> way to instantly create a new email folder for a sender and to track > >> the source who leaked the email address to spammers. > > Bull. I do that all the time. then explain how. my guess is you don't understand the problem. as far as i can tell, filters do not work with folders outside of the inbox. it's broken. > >> apple mail ignores imap folders other than the inbox, regardless of the > >> email never having been seen by apple mail or being unread. apparently > >> nobody at apple ever heard of postfix, which is used by many isps and > >> in particular, a little known service called gmail, which they must not > >> use either. > > That is untrue. I have HUNDREDS of folders on my IMAP stores. it's not about how many. > >> what apple mail should do is apply filters to *all* new mail, > > No, that would be a *terrible* idea. If the mail is sorted server-side > there is no reason to sort it on the client. there most certainly is a need to do additional filtering on the client side for unread mail that just happens to be in a different folder. maybe not for you, but you don't speak for everyone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-01 22:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vilain-7B8E00.22225001092013@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #48152 |
In article <010920132246475172%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <slrnl27pm4.28me.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > > >> it's incompatible with postfix, which can pre-sort mail into folders by > > >> using a + and a folder name, such as abc+apple@myisp.com. it's a great > > >> way to instantly create a new email folder for a sender and to track > > >> the source who leaked the email address to spammers. > > > > Bull. I do that all the time. > > then explain how. my guess is you don't understand the problem. > > as far as i can tell, filters do not work with folders outside of the > inbox. it's broken. > > > >> apple mail ignores imap folders other than the inbox, regardless of the > > >> email never having been seen by apple mail or being unread. apparently > > >> nobody at apple ever heard of postfix, which is used by many isps and > > >> in particular, a little known service called gmail, which they must not > > >> use either. > > > > That is untrue. I have HUNDREDS of folders on my IMAP stores. > > it's not about how many. > > > >> what apple mail should do is apply filters to *all* new mail, > > > > No, that would be a *terrible* idea. If the mail is sorted server-side > > there is no reason to sort it on the client. > > there most certainly is a need to do additional filtering on the client > side for unread mail that just happens to be in a different folder. > > maybe not for you, but you don't speak for everyone. I created a "Rule" to move a email with "To:" containing a specific string "forum" or Any recipient containing the host name of this listserv to do the following: move message to mailbox named FORUM play a sound stop evaluting rules the later is needed because all the Mail rules are evaluated and processed IN THE ORDER THEY APPEAR in the list of Rules. If that last step wasn't there, additional Rules would be processed for these emails. My guess is that you haven't figured how to use Mail Rules or Mail is just plain broken on your systems. Works fine on mine and has since I dumped Eudora some 10 years ago. Looked at other mail clients and they all sucked for one reason or another. Mailsmith came close but BareBones stopped development on it and never added IMAP support. Sparrow ONLY had IMAP support. PostBox searches were screwed up. Thunderbird wauld be my fallback. My take is that the only mail client you'll really like is one you develop yourself. Either live with what's out there, switch to a system with a system with mail you like, or code your own. Time to move on. -- DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-02 08:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <020920130822414219%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #48154 |
In article <vilain-7B8E00.22225001092013@news.individual.net>, Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote: > I created a "Rule" to move a email with "To:" containing a specific > string "forum" or Any recipient containing the host name of this > listserv to do the following: > > move message to mailbox named FORUM > play a sound > stop evaluting rules > > the later is needed because all the Mail rules are evaluated and > processed IN THE ORDER THEY APPEAR in the list of Rules. If that last > step wasn't there, additional Rules would be processed for these emails. > > My guess is that you haven't figured how to use Mail Rules or Mail is > just plain broken on your systems. Works fine on mine and has since I > dumped Eudora some 10 years ago. i don't think you understand what i'm saying either. i've figured mail rules out just fine. they all work properly if they are manually invoked. the problem is they will not automatically run if the email is in a folder other than the main inbox, despite the email being unread and never seen by apple mail. i can manually run them but that defeats the point of having rules in the first place. that means all the prefiltering done upstream is worthless. it also means nobody at apple ever thought of using a key feature of postfix and making apple mail compatible with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-02 08:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-59861C.08563202092013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #48155 |
In article <020920130822414219%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <vilain-7B8E00.22225001092013@news.individual.net>, Michael > Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote: > > > I created a "Rule" to move a email with "To:" containing a specific > > string "forum" or Any recipient containing the host name of this > > listserv to do the following: > > > > move message to mailbox named FORUM > > play a sound > > stop evaluting rules > > > > the later is needed because all the Mail rules are evaluated and > > processed IN THE ORDER THEY APPEAR in the list of Rules. If that last > > step wasn't there, additional Rules would be processed for these emails. > > > > My guess is that you haven't figured how to use Mail Rules or Mail is > > just plain broken on your systems. Works fine on mine and has since I > > dumped Eudora some 10 years ago. > > i don't think you understand what i'm saying either. > > i've figured mail rules out just fine. they all work properly if they > are manually invoked. > > the problem is they will not automatically run if the email is in a > folder other than the main inbox, despite the email being unread and > never seen by apple mail. i can manually run them but that defeats the > point of having rules in the first place. > > that means all the prefiltering done upstream is worthless. it also > means nobody at apple ever thought of using a key feature of postfix > and making apple mail compatible with it. What does this have to do with postfix? It's not the only system with server-side rules that can file messages into folders. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-02 10:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <020920131002544975%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #48156 |
In article <barmar-59861C.08563202092013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > that means all the prefiltering done upstream is worthless. it also > > means nobody at apple ever thought of using a key feature of postfix > > and making apple mail compatible with it. > > What does this have to do with postfix? It's not the only system with > server-side rules that can file messages into folders. it's the only one with which i'm familiar. if there are more, then the problem is even bigger than i thought.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-02 14:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5224d8dc$0$22420$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #48156 |
On 13-09-02 08:56, Barry Margolin wrote: > What does this have to do with postfix? It's not the only system with > server-side rules that can file messages into folders. In most cases, Postfix doesn't actually manage the mailbox store, it hands arriving emails to another piece of software. For instance, for Snow Leopard Server, Postfix hands arriving emails to Dovecot. And it is Dovecot which stores the email into the user's mailbox. It has Sieve script capability to process spam and file it in a different folder. Postfix doesn't have that ability in that setup. (But Postfix can block spam at the gate instead of letting it pass through and be processed).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-02 17:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-0D7D8E.17024202092013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #48163 |
In article <5224d8dc$0$22420$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 13-09-02 08:56, Barry Margolin wrote: > > > What does this have to do with postfix? It's not the only system with > > server-side rules that can file messages into folders. > > In most cases, Postfix doesn't actually manage the mailbox store, it > hands arriving emails to another piece of software. > > For instance, for Snow Leopard Server, Postfix hands arriving emails to > Dovecot. And it is Dovecot which stores the email into the user's > mailbox. It has Sieve script capability to process spam and file it in a > different folder. Postfix doesn't have that ability in that setup. (But > Postfix can block spam at the gate instead of letting it pass through > and be processed). My point was that server-side filters are not specific to Postfix. I do a small amount of server-side filtering in my Comcast account, which uses Zimbra. When I used to work for a company that uses Exchange, we were encouraged to use its server-side filtering; I didn't do it much, because I couldn't set categories like I could with client-side filters (both Mail and Outlook). I suspect it's a deliberate design choice by Apple not to do filtering of messages that aren't in the Inbox. IIRC, Outlook does the same thing, I suspect it's pretty common across other mail clients. They don't want dueling filters from different clients undoing what each has done. Perhaps they could have made it a preference option, but if this need is extremely rare it might not be worth it to them. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-02 17:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <020920131745400917%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #48169 |
In article <barmar-0D7D8E.17024202092013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > I suspect it's a deliberate design choice by Apple not to do filtering > of messages that aren't in the Inbox. that doesn't change anything. it still means a key feature of postfix and other similar software are voided. > IIRC, Outlook does the same thing, > I suspect it's pretty common across other mail clients. They don't want > dueling filters from different clients undoing what each has done. they wouldn't duel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-03 10:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-CCFD09.10413003092013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #48172 |
In article <020920131745400917%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <barmar-0D7D8E.17024202092013@news.eternal-september.org>, > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > I suspect it's a deliberate design choice by Apple not to do filtering > > of messages that aren't in the Inbox. > > that doesn't change anything. it still means a key feature of postfix > and other similar software are voided. You keep saying that, as if Apple were somehow UNDOING what postfix does. Postfix puts the mail in a folder, Apple doesn't void it. What I think you mean are that Mail rules are not as useful when combined with Postfix filtering. You could just do all your filtering in Mail. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-03 10:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <030920131046024178%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #48194 |
In article <barmar-CCFD09.10413003092013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > I suspect it's a deliberate design choice by Apple not to do filtering > > > of messages that aren't in the Inbox. > > > > that doesn't change anything. it still means a key feature of postfix > > and other similar software are voided. > > You keep saying that, as if Apple were somehow UNDOING what postfix > does. Postfix puts the mail in a folder, Apple doesn't void it. it makes the feature useless. i call that voided. > What I think you mean are that Mail rules are not as useful when > combined with Postfix filtering. that's what i said. > You could just do all your filtering in Mail. i could, but that means throwing out what's already been done. it also requires apple mail to always be running.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-03 12:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-CBB488.12374903092013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #48195 |
In article <030920131046024178%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <barmar-CCFD09.10413003092013@news.eternal-september.org>, > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > I suspect it's a deliberate design choice by Apple not to do filtering > > > > of messages that aren't in the Inbox. > > > > > > that doesn't change anything. it still means a key feature of postfix > > > and other similar software are voided. > > > > You keep saying that, as if Apple were somehow UNDOING what postfix > > does. Postfix puts the mail in a folder, Apple doesn't void it. > > it makes the feature useless. i call that voided. > > > What I think you mean are that Mail rules are not as useful when > > combined with Postfix filtering. > > that's what i said. > > > You could just do all your filtering in Mail. > > i could, but that means throwing out what's already been done. it also > requires apple mail to always be running. Why? As soon as you start it up, it will download the new mail and sort them into their folders. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-03 09:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4bioyhc0jz.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #48197 |
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: > In article <030920131046024178%nospam@nospam.invalid>, > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > In article <barmar-CCFD09.10413003092013@news.eternal-september.org>, > > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > I suspect it's a deliberate design choice by Apple not to do filtering > > > > > of messages that aren't in the Inbox. > > > > > > > > that doesn't change anything. it still means a key feature of postfix > > > > and other similar software are voided. > > > > > > You keep saying that, as if Apple were somehow UNDOING what postfix > > > does. Postfix puts the mail in a folder, Apple doesn't void it. > > > > it makes the feature useless. i call that voided. > > > > > What I think you mean are that Mail rules are not as useful when > > > combined with Postfix filtering. > > > > that's what i said. > > > > > You could just do all your filtering in Mail. > > > > i could, but that means throwing out what's already been done. it also > > requires apple mail to always be running. > > Why? As soon as you start it up, it will download the new mail and sort > them into their folders. Consider the following situation: I read email two places (my desktop with mail filters set up to do what I want) and my iPhone. If my computer is off, then I'm seeing new mail come in on my iPhone which does not get filtered by the filtering rules on my desktop. And in fact, I'm likely to read it on my iphone while reading other mail, so it is no longer new mail when my computer comes back on, thus the filtering doesn't even get applied then. I actually (like many people) have a more complicated situation. I read email in four places: my work computer, my home computer, my iPhone and my iPad. What I do is just leave my work computer on all the time, because the filtering I do is important for me. -Hal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-03 10:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vilain-94D089.10042603092013@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #48198 |
In article <4bioyhc0jz.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: > > > In article <030920131046024178%nospam@nospam.invalid>, > > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > > > In article <barmar-CCFD09.10413003092013@news.eternal-september.org>, > > > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I suspect it's a deliberate design choice by Apple not to do > > > > > > filtering > > > > > > of messages that aren't in the Inbox. > > > > > > > > > > that doesn't change anything. it still means a key feature of postfix > > > > > and other similar software are voided. > > > > > > > > You keep saying that, as if Apple were somehow UNDOING what postfix > > > > does. Postfix puts the mail in a folder, Apple doesn't void it. > > > > > > it makes the feature useless. i call that voided. > > > > > > > What I think you mean are that Mail rules are not as useful when > > > > combined with Postfix filtering. > > > > > > that's what i said. > > > > > > > You could just do all your filtering in Mail. > > > > > > i could, but that means throwing out what's already been done. it also > > > requires apple mail to always be running. > > > > Why? As soon as you start it up, it will download the new mail and sort > > them into their folders. > > Consider the following situation: > > I read email two places (my desktop with mail filters set up to do > what I want) and my iPhone. > > If my computer is off, then I'm seeing new mail come in on my iPhone > which does not get filtered by the filtering rules on my desktop. > > And in fact, I'm likely to read it on my iphone while reading other > mail, so it is no longer new mail when my computer comes back on, thus > the filtering doesn't even get applied then. > > I actually (like many people) have a more complicated situation. I > read email in four places: my work computer, my home computer, my > iPhone and my iPad. What I do is just leave my work computer on all > the time, because the filtering I do is important for me. > > -Hal That's why I prefer Gmail's prefered Folders. It does all the filtering and putting in folders. The Gmail client on my Android phone, the Apple Mail client on both my desktop and laptop, and my iTouch deal with it just fine. -- DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-03 13:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tom_stiller-A031BC.13475503092013@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #48200 |
In article <vilain-94D089.10042603092013@news.individual.net>, Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote: > In article <4bioyhc0jz.fsf@ethel.the.log>, > Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > [snip] > > I actually (like many people) have a more complicated situation. I > > read email in four places: my work computer, my home computer, my > > iPhone and my iPad. What I do is just leave my work computer on all > > the time, because the filtering I do is important for me. > > > > -Hal > > That's why I prefer Gmail's prefered Folders. It does all the filtering > and putting in folders. The Gmail client on my Android phone, the Apple > Mail client on both my desktop and laptop, and my iTouch deal with it > just fine. You can do the same thing on iCloud and not have to feed Google's advertising arm. -- PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-03 15:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-65A185.15280003092013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #48198 |
In article <4bioyhc0jz.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: > > > In article <030920131046024178%nospam@nospam.invalid>, > > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > > > In article <barmar-CCFD09.10413003092013@news.eternal-september.org>, > > > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I suspect it's a deliberate design choice by Apple not to do > > > > > > filtering > > > > > > of messages that aren't in the Inbox. > > > > > > > > > > that doesn't change anything. it still means a key feature of postfix > > > > > and other similar software are voided. > > > > > > > > You keep saying that, as if Apple were somehow UNDOING what postfix > > > > does. Postfix puts the mail in a folder, Apple doesn't void it. > > > > > > it makes the feature useless. i call that voided. > > > > > > > What I think you mean are that Mail rules are not as useful when > > > > combined with Postfix filtering. > > > > > > that's what i said. > > > > > > > You could just do all your filtering in Mail. > > > > > > i could, but that means throwing out what's already been done. it also > > > requires apple mail to always be running. > > > > Why? As soon as you start it up, it will download the new mail and sort > > them into their folders. > > Consider the following situation: > > I read email two places (my desktop with mail filters set up to do > what I want) and my iPhone. > > If my computer is off, then I'm seeing new mail come in on my iPhone > which does not get filtered by the filtering rules on my desktop. > > And in fact, I'm likely to read it on my iphone while reading other > mail, so it is no longer new mail when my computer comes back on, thus > the filtering doesn't even get applied then. > > I actually (like many people) have a more complicated situation. I > read email in four places: my work computer, my home computer, my > iPhone and my iPad. What I do is just leave my work computer on all > the time, because the filtering I do is important for me. > > -Hal I thought you might be talking about this. But if you read mail on multiple devices, client-side filtering in general is useless, because a filter on client A won't help if you read the mail first on client B. So since you're in such a tizzy about how Mail's filters don't work with pre-sorted mail, I assumed that you didn't make much use of multiple devices. But instead, you use the solution of leaving Mail running all the time (as do I). And in that case, my above suggestion that you do all the sorting and filtering in Mail should work fine. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-03 12:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6y7gex4s5e.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #48206 |
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: > In article <4bioyhc0jz.fsf@ethel.the.log>, > Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: > > > > > In article <030920131046024178%nospam@nospam.invalid>, > > > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <barmar-CCFD09.10413003092013@news.eternal-september.org>, > > > > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect it's a deliberate design choice by Apple not to do > > > > > > > filtering > > > > > > > of messages that aren't in the Inbox. > > > > > > > > > > > > that doesn't change anything. it still means a key feature of postfix > > > > > > and other similar software are voided. > > > > > > > > > > You keep saying that, as if Apple were somehow UNDOING what postfix > > > > > does. Postfix puts the mail in a folder, Apple doesn't void it. > > > > > > > > it makes the feature useless. i call that voided. > > > > > > > > > What I think you mean are that Mail rules are not as useful when > > > > > combined with Postfix filtering. > > > > > > > > that's what i said. > > > > > > > > > You could just do all your filtering in Mail. > > > > > > > > i could, but that means throwing out what's already been done. it also > > > > requires apple mail to always be running. > > > > > > Why? As soon as you start it up, it will download the new mail and sort > > > them into their folders. > > > > Consider the following situation: > > > > I read email two places (my desktop with mail filters set up to do > > what I want) and my iPhone. > > > > If my computer is off, then I'm seeing new mail come in on my iPhone > > which does not get filtered by the filtering rules on my desktop. > > > > And in fact, I'm likely to read it on my iphone while reading other > > mail, so it is no longer new mail when my computer comes back on, thus > > the filtering doesn't even get applied then. > > > > I actually (like many people) have a more complicated situation. I > > read email in four places: my work computer, my home computer, my > > iPhone and my iPad. What I do is just leave my work computer on all > > the time, because the filtering I do is important for me. > > I thought you might be talking about this. But if you read mail on > multiple devices, client-side filtering in general is useless, because a > filter on client A won't help if you read the mail first on client > B. That's simply not true. If client A is a Mac Desktop running Mail and client A is on, and Mail is on, then mail gets filtered by client A. I reap the benefits reading it with client B. > So since you're in such a tizzy about how Mail's filters don't work with > pre-sorted mail, I assumed that you didn't make much use of multiple > devices. You have me mistaken for someone else. I have said nothing about how Mail's filters work or don't work with pre-sorted mail. > But instead, you use the solution of leaving Mail running all the time > (as do I). And in that case, my above suggestion that you do all the > sorting and filtering in Mail should work fine. It does work fine for me. I have Mail always running on a desktop that is always on. I was simply answering _your_ question about why it is required for me to always have it on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-03 17:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-6E806F.17480503092013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #48208 |
In article <6y7gex4s5e.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: > > > In article <4bioyhc0jz.fsf@ethel.the.log>, > > Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: > > > > > > > In article <030920131046024178%nospam@nospam.invalid>, > > > > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <barmar-CCFD09.10413003092013@news.eternal-september.org>, > > > > > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect it's a deliberate design choice by Apple not to do > > > > > > > > filtering > > > > > > > > of messages that aren't in the Inbox. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that doesn't change anything. it still means a key feature of > > > > > > > postfix > > > > > > > and other similar software are voided. > > > > > > > > > > > > You keep saying that, as if Apple were somehow UNDOING what postfix > > > > > > does. Postfix puts the mail in a folder, Apple doesn't void it. > > > > > > > > > > it makes the feature useless. i call that voided. > > > > > > > > > > > What I think you mean are that Mail rules are not as useful when > > > > > > combined with Postfix filtering. > > > > > > > > > > that's what i said. > > > > > > > > > > > You could just do all your filtering in Mail. > > > > > > > > > > i could, but that means throwing out what's already been done. it > > > > > also > > > > > requires apple mail to always be running. > > > > > > > > Why? As soon as you start it up, it will download the new mail and sort > > > > them into their folders. > > > > > > Consider the following situation: > > > > > > I read email two places (my desktop with mail filters set up to do > > > what I want) and my iPhone. > > > > > > If my computer is off, then I'm seeing new mail come in on my iPhone > > > which does not get filtered by the filtering rules on my desktop. > > > > > > And in fact, I'm likely to read it on my iphone while reading other > > > mail, so it is no longer new mail when my computer comes back on, thus > > > the filtering doesn't even get applied then. > > > > > > I actually (like many people) have a more complicated situation. I > > > read email in four places: my work computer, my home computer, my > > > iPhone and my iPad. What I do is just leave my work computer on all > > > the time, because the filtering I do is important for me. > > > > I thought you might be talking about this. But if you read mail on > > multiple devices, client-side filtering in general is useless, because a > > filter on client A won't help if you read the mail first on client > > B. > > That's simply not true. > > If client A is a Mac Desktop running Mail and client A is on, and Mail > is on, then mail gets filtered by client A. I reap the benefits > reading it with client B. > > > So since you're in such a tizzy about how Mail's filters don't work with > > pre-sorted mail, I assumed that you didn't make much use of multiple > > devices. > > You have me mistaken for someone else. I have said nothing about how > Mail's filters work or don't work with pre-sorted mail. Sorry, I didn't bother looking at attributions. I thought the only one arguing that there's a problem with what Mail does was the guy who said he uses postfix to pre-sort his mail, and that Mail isn't compatible with this, so I assumed that was you when you responded. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-03 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4fwqmxinek.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #48213 |
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: (snip) > Sorry, I didn't bother looking at attributions. I thought the only one > arguing that there's a problem with what Mail does was the guy who said > he uses postfix to pre-sort his mail, and that Mail isn't compatible > with this, so I assumed that was you when you responded. I'm not arguing that there is a problem with Mail filters. But I am asserting that I need my desktop with the filter rules to stay always on (which I generally do).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web