John Smith wrote:

To prevent the Korean and blank subject/sender spam which is very common, my
actual rule is thus to automatically junk where the from/subject do not
contain roman vowels - "where the from line or the subject line do not
contain a or e or i or o or u, move the message to Junk."

You've already been told how to define a negative rule by using
exception clauses. This is an easy one to define in Outlook. My "blank
subject" rule is:

Apply this rule after the message arrives
assign it to the "Blank Subject" category
and move it to the Junk folder
and mark it as read
except if the Subject contains "a" ... or "z" or "0" ... or "9"
stop processing more rules

I add the suspect message to a category because I added the Category
column to the view for the Junk folder (along with turning off the
Preview pane for that folder). When I look at the items in the Junk
folder, I can see why they got moved there based on their category
(given to them by a rule).

I mark it as read so I'm not bothered with a bolded Junk folder in the
tree list of folders.

I test on any alphanumeric character in the Subject header. Someone
might be sending me an e-mail with "THX 1138" because we had talked
about movies with Robert Duvall or the type of movies about alternate
societal development, like "1984" or "A Brave New World". There are no
vowels in the Subject. Maybe someone sent me an e-mail about "WXP SP-3"
(which is about Windows XP Service Pack 2). There are lots of cases
where a vowel is absent, especially due to abbreviation. So I test on
any English alphabetic character. I also test on numbers since someone
might send me an e-mail with "899-12-4583934" which is a case number for
a trouble ticket that I opened.

I use a separate rule to test if the encoding on a message is using a
non-English character set. It would be rare that a Subject had
non-English words but the body had all English words. Fact is, I have
never seen this scenario but I have seen where the Subject was English
but the body of the message was non-English. I use rules in Outlook
that look for the Content-Type and the encoding used but this is defined
in the headers (and where Outlook Express cannot test). In Outlook, I
have it test for the following in the headers:

Content-Type: type;
charset="charset"

where charset is:

"Big5"
"ChineseBig_Charset"
"EUC-KR"
"GB2312"
"GB2312_Charset"
"ISO-2022-JP"
"ISO-2022-KR"
"KOI8-R"
"KS_C_5601_1987"
"Windows-1250"
"Windows-1251"
"Windows-1254"
"Windows-1256"
"Windows-1257"
"Windows-1258"
"Windows-874"

I'm still using Outlook 2002. I believe later versions let the user
pick which language sets are acceptable for received e-mails. This is
an option config in Outlook, not using rules. Windows Live Mail, the
replacement for Outlook Express, also lets you pick which language sets
are acceptable and without having to define rules.

It appears you are just trying to find an excuse to continue using
Outlook Express rather than switch to Outlook, not that Outlook cannot
do what you want in its rules. Rules in OE are weak so I stick with
Outlook. There are also many more features in Outlook that have no
counterpart in OE. OE is a simple e-mail client designed for personal
use. Outlook is a more complicated and more robust e-mail client
primarily designed for use in corporate environments along with the
Exchange server; however, Outlook still has more features than OE in a
non-Exchange setup.

You seem determined to continue using OE. If you're unwilling to learn
how to use Outlook, there was no point in asking how to use it. So, in
fact, it does appear your original post was trollish as it was NOT your
intent to figure out how to use Outlook. You already knew you were
going to stick with OE so your original post was pointless.

You seem determined to continue using OE. If you're unwilling to learn

I couldn't let this typically rude Microsoft marketing reply stand
without rebuttal.

The truth is that you *can* duplicate all your Outlook Express rules
in Outlook. If you start from scratch, functionally speaking, it's a
toss up; Outlook Express is more direct, concise and maintainable,
Outlook has more choices. If you wanted real rules, you'd never even
consider either product.

As the original poster has demonstrated, converting from Outlook
Express to Outlook is a completely different issue. Microsoft
intentionally chose to mis-convert rules, leading to lost mail and
lots of needless and needlessly difficult manual labor - hours, for
intermediate to advanced users - and this makes the original poster's
complaints **more** than valid.

Two examples: Outlook a) intentionally mis-converts OR (having no OR,
it turns OR into AND, guaranteeing failure; the converter could easily
have generated the two or more rules itself), and b) silently discards
any rules it finds "too hard" (although sometimes it simply converts
them wrong and (sometimes also turns them off)).

a1) If from Old_Acct AND (From Reputable_Vendor OR Subject contains
"Microsoft"), then Move to Folder and Stop processing more rules
a2) If from Old_Acct then Delete

b1) Any of the "It's Too Hard" Outlook Express rules ending in - and
Stop processing more rules
b2) If from Old_Acct then Delete

In either case, after switching to Outlook, *all* mail to Old_Acct
will be deleted; there are many, many gotchas like these.

Because of the non-resizable, content-free rule editor, checking,
adding or fixing your rules will be a chore (as is Outlook Express,
but OE is now more than 12 years old). There are also many little
things. If you duplicate the incorrectly converted rule I showed above
(to split the original OR clause in to a less maintainable brace of
rules), Outlook forces you to go to the bottom of the list and move it
up, whereas Outlook Express inserts it immediately below. It takes
more steps to rename a rule. Etc.

So be careful out there. Run parallel systems if you can, and
constantly check your deleted mail folder. Verify all forwards and
automated replies. It's almost as though the Exchange/Outlook team
tries to be as mean as the poster I replied to. Or vise versa.

"John NoSpame" wrote in message
...

I couldn't let this typically rude Microsoft marketing reply stand
without rebuttal.

It wasn't a "rude Microsoft marketing reply". Whether rude or not, no one
here works for Microsoft and or is marketing anything for Microsoft.
--
Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]