I would like to know...
 

....why Outlook's 2003 (the pay product) message rules are so ******* *****
compared to those in Outlook Express, (the free product)

No this isn't a troll, the ones in OE are so much more versatile.

I would like to know...
 

...why Outlook's 2003 (the pay product) message rules are so *******
***** compared to those in Outlook Express, (the free product)

No this isn't a troll, the ones in OE are so much more versatile.

Because they are two completely, totally different products.

Two different product teams.
Two different applications.

They just share a single word in their name.

--
f.h.
Microsoft Outlook MVP

I would like to know...
 

John Smith wrote:

...why Outlook's 2003 (the pay product) message rules are so ******* *****
compared to those in Outlook Express, (the free product)

No this isn't a troll, the ones in OE are so much more versatile.

There are only 2 conditions that OE has that Outlook does not: "Delete
from server" and "Do not download from server". On the other hand,
there are many criteria and actions available in Outlook that have no
counterpart in OE.

OE's rules are simplistic and so pathetic to be nearly unusable for spam
filtering on their own. You can't even have OE search any headers for a
value in them.

You don't know how to use rules in Outlook.

I would like to know...
 

"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:

...why Outlook's 2003 (the pay product) message rules are so *******
*****
compared to those in Outlook Express, (the free product)

No this isn't a troll, the ones in OE are so much more versatile.

There are only 2 conditions that OE has that Outlook does not: "Delete
from server" and "Do not download from server". On the other hand,
there are many criteria and actions available in Outlook that have no
counterpart in OE.

OE's rules are simplistic and so pathetic to be nearly unusable for spam
filtering on their own. You can't even have OE search any headers for a
value in them.

You don't know how to use rules in Outlook.

Explain to me then, how do you create a rule that does this:

If a message is from X OR contains X in the subject line, move to the X
folder.

Or this:

Where the from line OR the subject line DOES NOT contain X or Y or Z, then
move it to a specified folder.

I would like to know...
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...


Or this:

Where the from line OR the subject line DOES NOT contain X or Y or Z, then
move it to a specified folder.

That's on the third page of conditions in the Rules Wizard.

I would like to know...
 

"Gordon" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...


Or this:

Where the from line OR the subject line DOES NOT contain X or Y or Z,
then move it to a specified folder.

That's on the third page of conditions in the Rules Wizard.

The "except page"? Sure, but how? "Where a message contains (what??) except
where it contains X Y or Z move it to a specified folder"? And I still don't
see how to do OR conditions only AND conditions.

I would like to know...
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Explain to me then, how do you create a rule that does this:

If a message is from X OR contains X in the subject line, move to the X
folder.

This would take two rules, but it still can be done. The first rule would
look for the message being from X and move it if it is. The second rule would
look for X in the subject and move it if found. I don't see any advantage to
having one rule instead of two if the result is identical.

Where the from line OR the subject line DOES NOT contain X or Y or Z, then
move it to a specified folder.

This can also be done, although not quite as simply, but if the effect is the
same, then who cares?
--
Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]

I would like to know...
 

John Smith wrote:

VanguardLH wrote ...

John Smith wrote:

...why Outlook's 2003 (the pay product) message rules are so *******
*****
compared to those in Outlook Express, (the free product)

No this isn't a troll, the ones in OE are so much more versatile.

There are only 2 conditions that OE has that Outlook does not: "Delete
from server" and "Do not download from server". On the other hand,
there are many criteria and actions available in Outlook that have no
counterpart in OE.

OE's rules are simplistic and so pathetic to be nearly unusable for spam
filtering on their own. You can't even have OE search any headers for a
value in them.

You don't know how to use rules in Outlook.

Explain to me then, how do you create a rule that does this:

If a message is from X OR contains X in the subject line, move to the X
folder.

The OR operator is missing in Outlook for OR'ing together clauses within
a rule but then there is no functional need to OR clauses within a rule.
There is no functional difference in compacting multiple OR'ed clauses
within a single rule versus OR'ing multiple rules together. Your above
rule in OE can also be expressed as 2 rules:

If a message is from X, move to the X folder.
If a message contains X in the subject line, move to the X folder.

It's rather obvious how to define the same 2 rules in Outlook. In fact,
unless you actually have a need to OR together 2 mutually exclusive
clauses (they test on different criteria), you should add the
stop-clause to each rule. There is no reason to execute the 2nd rule
(or the 2nd OR clause within a rule) if the first condition fires. So,
in OE, you could use:

Apply this rule after the message arrives
Where the From line contains x
Move it to the folder folder
Stop processing more rules

Apply this rule after the message arrives
Where the Subject line contains x
Move it to the folder folder
Stop processing more rules

This is called short-circuiting the OR. Once a condition is true, there
is no point in wasting time in testing any further OR'ed conditions. If
one is true, it doesn't matter the results of the other later tests. It
is a simple matter to make equivalents of the above 2 OE rules in
Outlook, and Outlook also has the stop-clause.

Or this:

Where the from line OR the subject line DOES NOT contain X or Y or Z, then
move it to a specified folder.

Unable to tell what is the actual rule you defined in OE since you
cannot define the above rule in Outlook Express. Was it (sender OR
!subject) or was it !(sender OR subject)? They aren't the same. In one
(which you wrote), only 1 condition is being negated. However, you
never bothered to list the criteria for the first clause so the "DOES
NOT" might've have been meant to be applied against bother conditions.
Based on what you actually wrote (which cannot be written in OE as you
wrote it), I have to guess the closest matching actual OE rule would be.
It would've been much better if you showed your actual OE rule(s). My
guess based on what you said (versus what you might've meant) is:

Apply this after the message arrives
Where the From line contains senders
or Where the Subject does not line contain x or y or z
Move it to the folder folder

If I guessed wrong, you'll have to show the ACTUAL rule in OE that you
want to find an equivalent in Outlook. What you showed for OR'ing the
two clauses was superfluous. There is no point in OR'ing those two
clauses within the same rule except for compacting 2 rules into 1 rule.
There is no functional difference between having OR'ed clauses within a
rule and using multiple OR'ed rules. The same could be defined by using
2 rules:

Apply this after the message arrives
Where the From line contains senders
Move it to the folder folder

Apply this after the message arrives
Where the Subject does not line contain x or y or z
Move it to the folder folder

In Outlook, it's easy to see how to define the first rule. For the 2nd
rule, use a negative rule by using an exception clause, as in:

Apply this rule when the message arrives
Move to folder folder
except when Subject contains x or y or z

Since these were OR'ed clauses (but in 2 OR'ed rules), using the
stop-clause also applies here to short-circuit the OR'ed clauses.

It appears you are whitelisting known good senders. OE doesn't let you
test against a contacts list. Outlook does so you can use the "if
sender is in contact-type Address Book". Then you don't have to
manually duplicate and maintain a separate list of senders in each
whitelisting rule when they are already in your contacts list.

In Outlook, you can have multiple contact-type folders which means you
can have separated lists of different types of contacts and which also
means you have different whitelisting rules based on the type of
contact. For example, I have personal and business contacts folders and
have separate whitelisting rules for each contact type. I could use
categories in the rules and assign categories to the contacts in one
contact-type folder but I like the physical separation of the contact
lists.

I would like to know...
 

"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:

VanguardLH wrote ...

John Smith wrote:

...why Outlook's 2003 (the pay product) message rules are so *******
*****
compared to those in Outlook Express, (the free product)

No this isn't a troll, the ones in OE are so much more versatile.

There are only 2 conditions that OE has that Outlook does not: "Delete
from server" and "Do not download from server". On the other hand,
there are many criteria and actions available in Outlook that have no
counterpart in OE.

OE's rules are simplistic and so pathetic to be nearly unusable for spam
filtering on their own. You can't even have OE search any headers for a
value in them.

You don't know how to use rules in Outlook.

Explain to me then, how do you create a rule that does this:

If a message is from X OR contains X in the subject line, move to the X
folder.

The OR operator is missing in Outlook for OR'ing together clauses within
a rule but then there is no functional need to OR clauses within a rule.
There is no functional difference in compacting multiple OR'ed clauses
within a single rule versus OR'ing multiple rules together. Your above
rule in OE can also be expressed as 2 rules:

If a message is from X, move to the X folder.
If a message contains X in the subject line, move to the X folder.

It's rather obvious how to define the same 2 rules in Outlook. In fact,
unless you actually have a need to OR together 2 mutually exclusive
clauses (they test on different criteria), you should add the
stop-clause to each rule. There is no reason to execute the 2nd rule
(or the 2nd OR clause within a rule) if the first condition fires. So,
in OE, you could use:

Apply this rule after the message arrives
Where the From line contains x
Move it to the folder folder
Stop processing more rules

Apply this rule after the message arrives
Where the Subject line contains x
Move it to the folder folder
Stop processing more rules

This is called short-circuiting the OR. Once a condition is true, there
is no point in wasting time in testing any further OR'ed conditions. If
one is true, it doesn't matter the results of the other later tests. It
is a simple matter to make equivalents of the above 2 OE rules in
Outlook, and Outlook also has the stop-clause.

Or this:

Where the from line OR the subject line DOES NOT contain X or Y or Z,
then
move it to a specified folder.

Unable to tell what is the actual rule you defined in OE since you
cannot define the above rule in Outlook Express. Was it (sender OR
!subject) or was it !(sender OR subject)? They aren't the same. In one
(which you wrote), only 1 condition is being negated. However, you
never bothered to list the criteria for the first clause so the "DOES
NOT" might've have been meant to be applied against bother conditions.
Based on what you actually wrote (which cannot be written in OE as you
wrote it), I have to guess the closest matching actual OE rule would be.
It would've been much better if you showed your actual OE rule(s). My
guess based on what you said (versus what you might've meant) is:

Apply this after the message arrives
Where the From line contains senders
or Where the Subject does not line contain x or y or z
Move it to the folder folder

If I guessed wrong, you'll have to show the ACTUAL rule in OE that you
want to find an equivalent in Outlook. What you showed for OR'ing the
two clauses was superfluous. There is no point in OR'ing those two
clauses within the same rule except for compacting 2 rules into 1 rule.
There is no functional difference between having OR'ed clauses within a
rule and using multiple OR'ed rules. The same could be defined by using
2 rules:

Apply this after the message arrives
Where the From line contains senders
Move it to the folder folder

Apply this after the message arrives
Where the Subject does not line contain x or y or z
Move it to the folder folder

In Outlook, it's easy to see how to define the first rule. For the 2nd
rule, use a negative rule by using an exception clause, as in:

Apply this rule when the message arrives
Move to folder folder
except when Subject contains x or y or z

Since these were OR'ed clauses (but in 2 OR'ed rules), using the
stop-clause also applies here to short-circuit the OR'ed clauses.

It appears you are whitelisting known good senders. OE doesn't let you
test against a contacts list. Outlook does so you can use the "if
sender is in contact-type Address Book". Then you don't have to
manually duplicate and maintain a separate list of senders in each
whitelisting rule when they are already in your contacts list.

In Outlook, you can have multiple contact-type folders which means you
can have separated lists of different types of contacts and which also
means you have different whitelisting rules based on the type of
contact. For example, I have personal and business contacts folders and
have separate whitelisting rules for each contact type. I could use
categories in the rules and assign categories to the contacts in one
contact-type folder but I like the physical separation of the contact
lists.

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."

I would like to know...
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:

VanguardLH wrote ...

John Smith wrote:

...why Outlook's 2003 (the pay product) message rules are so *******
*****
compared to those in Outlook Express, (the free product)

No this isn't a troll, the ones in OE are so much more versatile.

There are only 2 conditions that OE has that Outlook does not: "Delete
from server" and "Do not download from server". On the other hand,
there are many criteria and actions available in Outlook that have no
counterpart in OE.

OE's rules are simplistic and so pathetic to be nearly unusable for
spam
filtering on their own. You can't even have OE search any headers for
a
value in them.

You don't know how to use rules in Outlook.

Explain to me then, how do you create a rule that does this:

If a message is from X OR contains X in the subject line, move to the X
folder.

The OR operator is missing in Outlook for OR'ing together clauses within
a rule but then there is no functional need to OR clauses within a rule.
There is no functional difference in compacting multiple OR'ed clauses
within a single rule versus OR'ing multiple rules together. Your above
rule in OE can also be expressed as 2 rules:

If a message is from X, move to the X folder.
If a message contains X in the subject line, move to the X folder.

It's rather obvious how to define the same 2 rules in Outlook. In fact,
unless you actually have a need to OR together 2 mutually exclusive
clauses (they test on different criteria), you should add the
stop-clause to each rule. There is no reason to execute the 2nd rule
(or the 2nd OR clause within a rule) if the first condition fires. So,
in OE, you could use:

Apply this rule after the message arrives
Where the From line contains x
Move it to the folder folder
Stop processing more rules

Apply this rule after the message arrives
Where the Subject line contains x
Move it to the folder folder
Stop processing more rules

This is called short-circuiting the OR. Once a condition is true, there
is no point in wasting time in testing any further OR'ed conditions. If
one is true, it doesn't matter the results of the other later tests. It
is a simple matter to make equivalents of the above 2 OE rules in
Outlook, and Outlook also has the stop-clause.

Or this:

Where the from line OR the subject line DOES NOT contain X or Y or Z,
then
move it to a specified folder.

Unable to tell what is the actual rule you defined in OE since you
cannot define the above rule in Outlook Express. Was it (sender OR
!subject) or was it !(sender OR subject)? They aren't the same. In one
(which you wrote), only 1 condition is being negated. However, you
never bothered to list the criteria for the first clause so the "DOES
NOT" might've have been meant to be applied against bother conditions.
Based on what you actually wrote (which cannot be written in OE as you
wrote it), I have to guess the closest matching actual OE rule would be.
It would've been much better if you showed your actual OE rule(s). My
guess based on what you said (versus what you might've meant) is:

Apply this after the message arrives
Where the From line contains senders
or Where the Subject does not line contain x or y or z
Move it to the folder folder

If I guessed wrong, you'll have to show the ACTUAL rule in OE that you
want to find an equivalent in Outlook. What you showed for OR'ing the
two clauses was superfluous. There is no point in OR'ing those two
clauses within the same rule except for compacting 2 rules into 1 rule.
There is no functional difference between having OR'ed clauses within a
rule and using multiple OR'ed rules. The same could be defined by using
2 rules:

Apply this after the message arrives
Where the From line contains senders
Move it to the folder folder

Apply this after the message arrives
Where the Subject does not line contain x or y or z
Move it to the folder folder

In Outlook, it's easy to see how to define the first rule. For the 2nd
rule, use a negative rule by using an exception clause, as in:

Apply this rule when the message arrives
Move to folder folder
except when Subject contains x or y or z

Since these were OR'ed clauses (but in 2 OR'ed rules), using the
stop-clause also applies here to short-circuit the OR'ed clauses.

It appears you are whitelisting known good senders. OE doesn't let you
test against a contacts list. Outlook does so you can use the "if
sender is in contact-type Address Book". Then you don't have to
manually duplicate and maintain a separate list of senders in each
whitelisting rule when they are already in your contacts list.

In Outlook, you can have multiple contact-type folders which means you
can have separated lists of different types of contacts and which also
means you have different whitelisting rules based on the type of
contact. For example, I have personal and business contacts folders and
have separate whitelisting rules for each contact type. I could use
categories in the rules and assign categories to the contacts in one
contact-type folder but I like the physical separation of the contact
lists.

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."

Well, I think OE serves my purposes for now!