Junk detection without other RBI features?
Jesper Dybdal
I do not want Agent to assume that moving a message to a folder other
than "Junk" means anything at all except that I want that message in
that folder: I do not want it to assume that this has anything to do
with the addresses in the messages or that it means that it is not junk.
And I do not want Agent to move anything automatically except for Junk
(and what I have explicitly specified in the address book or in
filters).
But I do want it to do junk evaluation and to move messages to "Junk".
It doesn't seem to do that unless I enable RBI; is there a way to do
that but inhibit it from moving anything other than junk anywhere and
also keep it from assigning folders to address book entryies
automatically?
Does the RBI message moving (to "Junk", for instance) happen even for
messages that have been moved by a filter? (I hope so.)
I am of course quite willing to explicitly provide it with examples of
junk and non-junk that it can learn from.
--
Jesper Dybdal, Denmark.
http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish).
h...@h-gee.co.uk
wrote:
Hi Jesper
I must agree with your statements above but on the other hand why would you NOT
want emails put in a folder for the person or subject they pertain to?
I expect you have several folders for your emails and I expect that in the past
you have had or have got filters set to control where the emails are filed so I
cannot see a problem initially but I do agree that RBI does need tweaking or a
gentle nudge with an American screwdriver (hammer) ;>))
Junk control works wonderfully well once it is trained - put a junk icon on the
task bar and use it by selecting a junk message and then pressing the junk icon
- junk trained!
The routing goes - filter first - RBI - JUNK (I think)
JUNK does not use RBI
And I also agree that you shouldn't need to add any address to the address book
- I think Agent should build it's own "white list" and/or "black list" (JUNK)
and not use the address book however, yo can hide addresses but this is
troublesome again so......
Perhaps Agent 4.2 will solve this.......................
--
The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.
Jesper Dybdal
>I must agree with your statements above but on the other hand why would you NOT
>want emails put in a folder for the person or subject they pertain to?
I file things depending on the subject, and some persons are contacts in
relation to several subjects. I do not want Agent to automatically
think that it knows that a message from a given person is always related
to the subject of a certain folder.
>The routing goes - filter first - RBI - JUNK (I think)
I suspect that you're right. If that means that filter-routed messages
is never moved to junk, then I can't use the junk detection feature at
all. My filters sort (just about all) messages into folders depending
on the *recipient* address (I have one for each mailing list
subscription, for instance) and it sounds as if that defeats the junk
detection.
Suggestion for Forté: let the RBI/junk detection act as a filters with
certain priorities (configurable, so they can be 100% backward
compatible), so we can choose whether each filter should have priority
over RBI/junk detection. Also, please separate RBI in general from junk
handling - and write a detailed and very precise description of what
actually happens to incoming mail in which order, depending on which
settings.
Jeffrey Kaplan
> I do not want Agent to assume that moving a message to a folder other
> than "Junk" means anything at all except that I want that message in
> that folder: I do not want it to assume that this has anything to do
> with the addresses in the messages or that it means that it is not junk.
>
> And I do not want Agent to move anything automatically except for Junk
> (and what I have explicitly specified in the address book or in
> filters).
>
> But I do want it to do junk evaluation and to move messages to "Junk".
> It doesn't seem to do that unless I enable RBI; is there a way to do
> that but inhibit it from moving anything other than junk anywhere and
> also keep it from assigning folders to address book entryies
> automatically?
On the Junk And Routing panel, enable Junk Detection but do not enable
Route By Identity.
> Does the RBI message moving (to "Junk", for instance) happen even for
> messages that have been moved by a filter? (I hope so.)
RBI does not move or train junk. Junk Detection moves or trains junk.
RBI moves or trains Route By Identity.
> I am of course quite willing to explicitly provide it with examples of
> junk and non-junk that it can learn from.
You can do that with the Folder Training Wizard or Message Training
Wizard in the Tools menu.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan Agent Support Team www.forteinc.com
Jeffrey Kaplan
> I file things depending on the subject, and some persons are contacts in
> relation to several subjects. I do not want Agent to automatically
> think that it knows that a message from a given person is always related
> to the subject of a certain folder.
FYI: On the Junk And Routing panel, in the section for enabling RBI,
you can also enable the option to use content analysis to enhance RBI.
What this does is, if you have a contact assigned to multiple folders,
it will learn from your corrections to route messages from that
contact. Depending on how distinct the subjects are, it may train in a
short amount of time, or it may take a while.
> >The routing goes - filter first - RBI - JUNK (I think)
> I suspect that you're right. If that means that filter-routed messages
> is never moved to junk, then I can't use the junk detection feature at
> all. My filters sort (just about all) messages into folders depending
> on the *recipient* address (I have one for each mailing list
> subscription, for instance) and it sounds as if that defeats the junk
> detection.
It does... unless you check the box on the filter to enable Junk
Detection. Take a look at the bottom two checkboxes in the Options
section of the add/edit email filter dialog. If you want those always
on, you can set them in the Watch|Kill Filter Initial Settings.
> Suggestion for Forté: let the RBI/junk detection act as a filters with
> certain priorities (configurable, so they can be 100% backward
RBI and Filters are not the same thing. Neither is Junk Detection and
Filters. They use completely different methodologies that are
incompatible by nature. This is why Filters take precedence over RBI
which takes precedence over Junk Detection, and why you can tell the
filters and RBI on a per-rule basis to enable Junk Detection.
> compatible), so we can choose whether each filter should have priority
> over RBI/junk detection. Also, please separate RBI in general from junk
> handling - and write a detailed and very precise description of what
RBI is separate from Junk.
> actually happens to incoming mail in which order, depending on which
> settings.
hsg nailed it. First filters, then RBI, then Junk. If you want to
know what happened to put an email where you found it, click the yellow
icon button on the right edge of the body pane headerbar.
Jim Rusling
You can enable junk detection on each filter.
--
Jim Rusling
More or Less Retired
Mustang, OK
http://www.rusling.org
h...@h-gee.co.uk
wrote:
>h...@h-gee.co.uk wrote:
>
>>I must agree with your statements above but on the other hand why would you NOT
>>want emails put in a folder for the person or subject they pertain to?
>
>I file things depending on the subject, and some persons are contacts in
>relation to several subjects. I do not want Agent to automatically
>think that it knows that a message from a given person is always related
>to the subject of a certain folder.
>
>>The routing goes - filter first - RBI - JUNK (I think)
>
>I suspect that you're right. If that means that filter-routed messages
>is never moved to junk, then I can't use the junk detection feature at
>all.
Yes you can - edit the filter to include JUNK detection - it works
> My filters sort (just about all) messages into folders depending
>on the *recipient* address (I have one for each mailing list
>subscription, for instance) and it sounds as if that defeats the junk
>detection.
See above comment
>
>Suggestion for Forté: let the RBI/junk detection act as a filters with
>certain priorities (configurable, so they can be 100% backward
>compatible), so we can choose whether each filter should have priority
>over RBI/junk detection. Also, please separate RBI in general from junk
>handling - and write a detailed and very precise description of what
>actually happens to incoming mail in which order, depending on which
>settings.
It seems to work Ok with Filter (with junk detection) - RBI - JUNK but what I
don't like is the address book additions - I think this should be an unseen
"white list" (editable) and the black list is obviously already there as JUNK
PS where in Denmark are you? My family are Danish/Norwegian - My father's
mother was second cousin to the queen at the turn of the 20th century so if
about 600 people die tonight I'd be the King of Denmark (as about 50% of the
Danish population would be too!)
Ron May
<jdunet...@u10.dybdal.dk> wrote:
> I do not want Agent to assume that moving a message to a folder other
> than "Junk" means anything at all except that I want that message in
> that folder: I do not want it to assume that this has anything to do
> with the addresses in the messages or that it means that it is not junk.
>
> And I do not want Agent to move anything automatically except for Junk
> (and what I have explicitly specified in the address book or in
> filters).
In "Fo;der > Prpoerties > Receiving Messages > Email Training,"
deselect the "Enable Route by Identity (RBI) training for this
folder." Any message moved from, say, Inbox, to RBI disabled folders
will NOT be automatically routed (No Blue Arrow Icon to the left of
the folder.) EXAMPLE:
you have several folders named as follows:
Newsletters
Technical
Reference
Archive
Hold
Personal
ToDo
Done
Supposing you want to AUTOMATICALLY route "Newsletters" and "Personal"
but not the others. You enable RBI training on those two and disable
it on the rest. After doing that, when you move a message from
"Inbox" to "Personal" it will be trained and automatically be routed
to "Personal" in the future. On the other hand, when you move a
message from "Inbox" to "ToDo" and later from "ToDo" to "Done" those
moves will NOT be recognized by RBI.
Don't know if this helps, but it's a thought. I got rid of all of my
incoming message filters this way. The ones I WANT to route get
routed, and the ones I want to leave in my inbox until I move them
elsewhere (to a non-RBI trained folder) are delivered and stay in my
inbox until/unless I move, delete or classify them as junk.
--
Ron M.
Jesper Dybdal
>Yes you can - edit the filter to include JUNK detection - it works
Exactly. Thanks.
>PS where in Denmark are you? My family are Danish/Norwegian - My father's
>mother was second cousin to the queen at the turn of the 20th century so if
>about 600 people die tonight I'd be the King of Denmark (as about 50% of the
>Danish population would be too!)
I'm in the Copenhagen area. I think much more than 600 people will need
to die before I'm King...
Jesper Dybdal
>It is alleged that Jesper Dybdal claimed:
>
>> My filters sort (just about all) messages into folders depending
>> on the *recipient* address (I have one for each mailing list
>> subscription, for instance) and it sounds as if that defeats the junk
>> detection.
>
>It does... unless you check the box on the filter to enable Junk
>Detection. Take a look at the bottom two checkboxes in the Options
>section of the add/edit email filter dialog. If you want those always
>on, you can set them in the Watch|Kill Filter Initial Settings.
Thank you! That was precisely the point I was missing - I hadn't
studied the filter dialog since upgrading. (And though I get a little
tired thinking about setting that check box in all my filters, it
actually probably won't take too long.)
Also thanks to the other people who responded.
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:15:26 +0200:
> Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>
> >It is alleged that Jesper Dybdal claimed:
> >
> >> My filters sort (just about all) messages into folders depending
> >> on the *recipient* address (I have one for each mailing list
> >> subscription, for instance) and it sounds as if that defeats the junk
> >> detection.
> >
> >It does... unless you check the box on the filter to enable Junk
> >Detection. Take a look at the bottom two checkboxes in the Options
> >section of the add/edit email filter dialog. If you want those always
> >on, you can set them in the Watch|Kill Filter Initial Settings.
>
> Thank you! That was precisely the point I was missing - I hadn't
> studied the filter dialog since upgrading. (And though I get a little
> tired thinking about setting that check box in all my filters, it
> actually probably won't take too long.)
Select all the filters you want to change. Right click, Edit..., Check the
box, OK.
> Also thanks to the other people who responded.
--
Nick Spalding
XPHomeSP2, Celeron, 1.2GHz, 256MB RAM, 625MB Page file, IE6.0, NTFS
Video adapter: Intel(R) 82845G Screen: LCD 1024x768x60Hz
Jesper Dybdal
>Select all the filters you want to change. Right click, Edit..., Check the
>box, OK.
You're right. The dialog user interface is better than I realized.
Thanks.
I wonder about the "Train non-junk messages as legitimate" setting.
Does that really make sense? Using the existing filter knowledge about
junk/legitimate to classify something as legitimate and then using that
result as authoritative to train the filter seems wrong to me: if the
filter is mistaken, this mechanism will simply make its errors worse (by
strengthening its incorrect belief that it was a legitimate message),
and if it isn't, then there is no reason to train the message.
Christa
>
>I do not want Agent to assume that moving a message to a folder other
>than "Junk" means anything at all except that I want that message in
>that folder: I do not want it to assume that this has anything to do
>with the addresses in the messages or that it means that it is not junk.
>
>And I do not want Agent to move anything automatically except for Junk
>(and what I have explicitly specified in the address book or in
>filters).
What I don't see mentioned so far in this thread, is that you have to
assign RBI to the folders to make it work. I guess that as long as you
don't assign RBI to any of your folders, you are only training 'junk'
and nothing else.
--
Christa
h...@h-gee.co.uk
>Jesper Dybdal wrote, in <3vu3f2dclgr36baip...@nuser.dybdal.dk>
> on Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:15:26 +0200:
>
>> Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >It is alleged that Jesper Dybdal claimed:
>> >
>> >> My filters sort (just about all) messages into folders depending
>> >> on the *recipient* address (I have one for each mailing list
>> >> subscription, for instance) and it sounds as if that defeats the junk
>> >> detection.
>> >
>> >It does... unless you check the box on the filter to enable Junk
>> >Detection. Take a look at the bottom two checkboxes in the Options
>> >section of the add/edit email filter dialog. If you want those always
>> >on, you can set them in the Watch|Kill Filter Initial Settings.
>>
>> Thank you! That was precisely the point I was missing - I hadn't
>> studied the filter dialog since upgrading. (And though I get a little
>> tired thinking about setting that check box in all my filters, it
>> actually probably won't take too long.)
>
>Select all the filters you want to change. Right click, Edit..., Check the
>box, OK.
But Nick you cannot do this globally which is one thing I would like to do is to
disable all filters with 2 or 3 key strokes or mouse moves
>
>> Also thanks to the other people who responded.
--
The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.
h...@h-gee.co.uk
I think this is where the confusion sets in. We want to see how good JUNK
detection is and also want RBI for everything but I think its RBI for a few
folders and Filters for the others with JUNK sorting on everything except NG
Jeffrey Kaplan
> I wonder about the "Train non-junk messages as legitimate" setting.
>
> Does that really make sense? Using the existing filter knowledge about
To make the junk filter better, it not only learns what is junk, it
also learns what is legit. By setting the option to "train non-junk as
legitimate", you're explicitly telling Agent to learn that it's
legitimate if it's not junk, as opposed to leaving it in a neutral
state.
> junk/legitimate to classify something as legitimate and then using that
> result as authoritative to train the filter seems wrong to me: if the
> filter is mistaken, this mechanism will simply make its errors worse (by
> strengthening its incorrect belief that it was a legitimate message),
> and if it isn't, then there is no reason to train the message.
If it makes a mistake, correct it by moving the message to where it
belongs. Moving a message into the Junk folder trains it as Junk.
Moving a message out of the Junk folder trains it as Legitimate.
Except for moving from the Junk to the Trash. That's merely a
deletion.
Jeffrey Kaplan
> It seems to work Ok with Filter (with junk detection) - RBI - JUNK but what I
> don't like is the address book additions - I think this should be an unseen
> "white list" (editable) and the black list is obviously already there as JUNK
What's wrong with using the address book as the whitelist?
Jeffrey Kaplan
> > And I do not want Agent to move anything automatically except for Junk
> > (and what I have explicitly specified in the address book or in
> > filters).
>
> In "Fo;der > Prpoerties > Receiving Messages > Email Training,"
> deselect the "Enable Route by Identity (RBI) training for this
> folder." Any message moved from, say, Inbox, to RBI disabled folders
Better: Tools \ Options \ Inbound Email \ Junk And Routing. Make sure
"Enable route by identity" is not checked. He wants to turn it
completely off, not merely not enable it for specific folders.
h...@h-gee.co.uk
>It is alleged that h...@h-gee.co.uk claimed:
>
>> It seems to work Ok with Filter (with junk detection) - RBI - JUNK but what I
>> don't like is the address book additions - I think this should be an unseen
>> "white list" (editable) and the black list is obviously already there as JUNK
>
>What's wrong with using the address book as the whitelist?
>
Nothing except it would contain hundreds of unwanted addresses. No offence
meant Jeffery but would I really want your address in my address book or Lars'
or Becki's or Arie's etc.
It's bad enough trolling through the address book with what I have there let
alone with hundreds more I don't want just as a white list. It's like saying
all my friends are in the phone book so I needn't make a not of their individual
phone numbers so every time I want to call them I get a 2" thick book 10" x 9"
from my back pocket just to look up one name???????
I can write that on the back of a book of matches.
tony summerfelt
<gor...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>What's wrong with using the address book as the whitelist?
i can't speak for anyone else, but the only people i want in my
address book are those i'm actually going to email.
i mentioned in a post a few days ago that some mailing lists i'm on
have hundreds of users whom i'll never email (but who may email me).
http://home.cogeco.ca/~tsummerfelt1
ROVING SWARM: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/roving_swarm/
telnet://ventedspleen.dyndns.org
Jeffrey Kaplan
> >What's wrong with using the address book as the whitelist?
> >
> Nothing except it would contain hundreds of unwanted addresses. No offence
> meant Jeffery but would I really want your address in my address book or Lars'
> or Becki's or Arie's etc.
>
> It's bad enough trolling through the address book with what I have there let
> alone with hundreds more I don't want just as a white list. It's like saying
> all my friends are in the phone book so I needn't make a not of their individual
> phone numbers so every time I want to call them I get a 2" thick book 10" x 9"
> from my back pocket just to look up one name???????
Nice explanation. I've noted it in the feedback.
Jesper Dybdal
>It is alleged that Jesper Dybdal claimed:
>
>> I wonder about the "Train non-junk messages as legitimate" setting.
>>
>> Does that really make sense? Using the existing filter knowledge about
>
>To make the junk filter better, it not only learns what is junk, it
>also learns what is legit. By setting the option to "train non-junk as
>legitimate", you're explicitly telling Agent to learn that it's
>legitimate if it's not junk, as opposed to leaving it in a neutral
>state.
My problem was that what the filter seems to be learning is not that the
message is legit, but that the filter itself already believes the
message to be legit. Teaching a filter that the same filter judges
something to be legit does not give the filter any new information.
However:
>If it makes a mistake, correct it by moving the message to where it
>belongs. Moving a message into the Junk folder trains it as Junk.
>Moving a message out of the Junk folder trains it as Legitimate.
If the filter algorithm has the property that training a message as
legit and then later training the same message as junk has the same net
effect as training it as junk only, then you are right: it will work
well, because the new information the filter ends up getting for legit
messages is that the user does not manually move it to junk.
So yes, it probably does make sense.
h...@h-gee.co.uk
wrote:
>Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@forteinc.com> wrote:
My Brain Hurts.......................
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
<snow...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:08:12 -0400, Jeffrey Kaplan
><gor...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>
>>What's wrong with using the address book as the whitelist?
>
>i can't speak for anyone else, but the only people i want in my
>address book are those i'm actually going to email.
>
>i mentioned in a post a few days ago that some mailing lists i'm on
>have hundreds of users whom i'll never email (but who may email me).
>
I put the names of the lists in my address book. I think that could be
used for whitelist but I've not tried.
--
Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software
EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
http://www.easynn.com
h...@h-gee.co.uk
>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:44:47 -0400, tony summerfelt
><snow...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:08:12 -0400, Jeffrey Kaplan
>><gor...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What's wrong with using the address book as the whitelist?
>>
>>i can't speak for anyone else, but the only people i want in my
>>address book are those i'm actually going to email.
>>
>>i mentioned in a post a few days ago that some mailing lists i'm on
>>have hundreds of users whom i'll never email (but who may email me).
>>
>
>I put the names of the lists in my address book. I think that could be
>used for whitelist but I've not tried.
The problem has been logged --------------
Jeffrey Kaplan
> >To make the junk filter better, it not only learns what is junk, it
> >also learns what is legit. By setting the option to "train non-junk as
> >legitimate", you're explicitly telling Agent to learn that it's
> >legitimate if it's not junk, as opposed to leaving it in a neutral
> >state.
>
> My problem was that what the filter seems to be learning is not that the
> message is legit, but that the filter itself already believes the
> message to be legit. Teaching a filter that the same filter judges
> something to be legit does not give the filter any new information.
I think a slight change of perspective might help:
A rules based filter does not care about Junk vs Legit, it only cares
if its rule matches the message or not. "Enable junk detection..."
tells Agent to run the junk detection on a matching message anyway and
override the filter if it's detected as Junk. "Train non-junk as
legit" then also tells Agent that if it's not detected as Junk, to
specifically train it as a legit message, in order to further refine
the junk detection algorithm.
If it wasn't detected as junk but you say it is and tell Agent that it
is, the junk detection is trained appropriately.
Jeffrey Kaplan
> >i mentioned in a post a few days ago that some mailing lists i'm on
> >have hundreds of users whom i'll never email (but who may email me).
> >
>
> I put the names of the lists in my address book. I think that could be
> used for whitelist but I've not tried.
Are they RBI routed to one or more folders?
Jesper Dybdal
>It is alleged that Jesper Dybdal claimed:
>
>> My problem was that what the filter seems to be learning is not that the
>> message is legit, but that the filter itself already believes the
>> message to be legit. Teaching a filter that the same filter judges
>> something to be legit does not give the filter any new information.
>
>"Train non-junk as
>legit" then also tells Agent that if it's not detected as Junk, to
>specifically train it as a legit message, in order to further refine
>the junk detection algorithm.
It cannot *in itself* refine the algorithm to inform it that the
algorithm itself has judged a message to be legit.
If we call the junk detection algorithm X, then what happens initially
seems to be:
* We ask X "Is this message legit?".
* X says "Yes".
* We then tell X that "X thinks this is a legit message".
X doesn't learn anything new in the last step.
However:
>If it wasn't detected as junk but you say it is and tell Agent that it
>is, the junk detection is trained appropriately.
And that probably makes the whole thing very meaningful after all.
Because, if the algorithm has the properties I hope it has (and it
probably does, since the Agent development team seems to be competent),
it changes the sequence above into:
* We ask X "Is this message legit?".
* X says "Yes".
* We then tell X that "Unless and until the user later says otherwise,
this message is to be considered legit".
Jeffrey Kaplan
> >"Train non-junk as
> >legit" then also tells Agent that if it's not detected as Junk, to
> >specifically train it as a legit message, in order to further refine
> >the junk detection algorithm.
>
> It cannot *in itself* refine the algorithm to inform it that the
> algorithm itself has judged a message to be legit.
>
> If we call the junk detection algorithm X, then what happens initially
> seems to be:
> * We ask X "Is this message legit?".
> * X says "Yes".
> * We then tell X that "X thinks this is a legit message".
>
> X doesn't learn anything new in the last step.
You're missing the fact that the rules-based filters would normally
override the junk detection. In practical terms, that means that junk
detection would not even SEE that message unless the filter was also
set to run through the junk detection.
Take the rules based filter out of the loop and your analysis is
correct. Add the rules based filter, which is what this subthread is
about, and your analysis is not correct because you're working off of
an incorrect assumption.
Luca
> Moving a message into the Junk folder trains it as Junk.
> Moving a message out of the Junk folder trains it as Legitimate.
People trying the latter may notice that it's a little harder to get the
desired result than with the former. Sometimes it takes eight-ten consecutive
"train as legitimate" actions on the same message to have it finally
considered as non-junk. First attempts, or simply moving out the message from
the junk folder, may have no effect on the message analisys.
--
Luca - e-mail: p.stevens at linuxfan.it
Luca
> It is alleged that h...@h-gee.co.uk claimed:
>
> > It seems to work Ok with Filter (with junk detection) - RBI - JUNK but what I
> > don't like is the address book additions - I think this should be an unseen
> > "white list" (editable) and the black list is obviously already there as JUNK
>
> What's wrong with using the address book as the whitelist?
Problem is that the address book is not only a whitelist, it's also a
repository of essential data to file messages into folders. It's not an
address book anymore, literally speaking.
Luca
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:18:54 +0200, Christa <mevr...@spamadres.nl> wrote:
> >What I don't see mentioned so far in this thread, is that you have to
> >assign RBI to the folders to make it work. I guess that as long as you
> >don't assign RBI to any of your folders, you are only training 'junk'
> >and nothing else.
> I think this is where the confusion sets in. We want to see how good JUNK
> detection is and also want RBI for everything
I have been testing Agent junk detection only for the last two or three
months, deliberately with no RBI enabled folders. I can say that it seems very
good, except for the little weirdness mentioned here:
<news:ed3mch$e8n$1...@nnrp.linuxfan.it>
h...@h-gee.co.uk
While we are returning to the address book, whitelist saga can I comment on the
fact that it is confusing when one picks (and I use that work carefully) - picks
and address from the address book to send an email to someone then when using
the same or another email that has been sent previously (sent folder - choose
one - new copy of message) and you want to change the "TO" field and you choose
to use "PICK" button at the end you DO NOT get the address book open but another
utility with address' in it but with different control buttons in different
places.
I would like some similarity or the real address book to open from where I am
getting used to working from.
Nick Spalding
on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:47:15 +0200:
True, which is why the file it resides in is called contact.xml.
Jeffrey Kaplan
> While we are returning to the address book, whitelist saga can I comment on the
> fact that it is confusing when one picks (and I use that work carefully) - picks
> and address from the address book to send an email to someone then when using
> the same or another email that has been sent previously (sent folder - choose
> one - new copy of message) and you want to change the "TO" field and you choose
> to use "PICK" button at the end you DO NOT get the address book open but another
> utility with address' in it but with different control buttons in different
> places.
>
> I would like some similarity or the real address book to open from where I am
> getting used to working from.
One is the address book and the other is the pick list. They've always
had different button layouts.
h...@h-gee.co.uk
But why? They do the same job -----
Jeffrey Kaplan
> >> I would like some similarity or the real address book to open from where I am
> >> getting used to working from.
> >
> >One is the address book and the other is the pick list. They've always
> >had different button layouts.
>
>
> But why? They do the same job -----
Your comment/suggestion has been noted, of course.
h...@h-gee.co.uk
>It is alleged that h...@h-gee.co.uk claimed:
>
>> >> I would like some similarity or the real address book to open from where I am
>> >> getting used to working from.
>> >
>> >One is the address book and the other is the pick list. They've always
>> >had different button layouts.
>>
>>
>> But why? They do the same job -----
>
>Your comment/suggestion has been noted, of course.
Thank you Jeffery.
Bill Maxwell
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:22:30 GMT, Al Superczynski
><mode...@deadspam.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:41:54 GMT, Jim Higgins
>><inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Is there a list of all suggested changes and features somewhere where
>>>we can look at it?
>>
>> That info's not even available to Beta testers.
>
>Well... I was just wondering...
>
>1. What's in the list - obviously.
>2. How long it has been in the list. (Uh, oh!)
>3. Whether the list is actively "triaged."
>4. Whether the triaged list is referenced when upgrades are planned.
>
>Based on observation I can make educated guesses and the result is
>disappointing. So I'm asking - my pessimistic guesses aside - what's
>the real deal with all these years worth of feature requests?
>
>It strikes me that every time there's a new release I see some of the
>same requests I've seen before (because they're STILL not implemented)
>and the response is invariably to post those requests to this mythical
>list from which even simple and useful requests that many would seem
>to want never again see the light of day.
>
>How long have we been asking for nested folders? We got desks with
>folders in them, but that's not nested folders. But don't get hung up
>on just that one; there are many more on that list. So what's up with
>the list?
The list is evidently a SECRET.
To me, what you say makes sense. A lot of companies don't keep the list
secret. It would be nice to see how many "votes" each requested feature
is getting, as some other companies do.
Bill Maxwell
<mode...@deadspam.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:22:19 GMT, Jim Higgins
><inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I was just wondering...
>>
>>1. What's in the list - obviously.
>>2. How long it has been in the list. (Uh, oh!)
>>3. Whether the list is actively "triaged."
>>4. Whether the triaged list is referenced when upgrades are planned.
>>
>>Based on observation I can make educated guesses and the result is
>>disappointing. So I'm asking - my pessimistic guesses aside - what's
>>the real deal with all these years worth of feature requests?
>
> I certainly don't presume to speak for Forté but I suspect that
>they add features based on overall demand and rank requests
>accordingly.
<snip>
Yes, Mark Prince acknowledged this in a thread in this newsgroup 2 or 3
months or so ago.
Basically, every person that requests a particular feature by submitting
it on the Agent website is voting for that feature. So, if you really
want a feature, get all your friends to vote for it by submitting the
same request.
--
Bill
Al Superczynski
<bill_maxwell_n...@notreal.net> wrote:
>A lot of companies don't keep the list secret.
Which companies, for example?
--
"I am alone: all drowns in the Pharisees' hypocrisy". - Boris Pasternak
Liberty
wrote:
>
>I don't see anything above that even remotely answers my concerns. All
>I see is conjecture by someone saying he doesn't speak for Forté. With
>no offense intended, any answer on this topic by someone who doesn't
>speak for Forté is not a useful answer.
If you want a proper answer perhaps you should email them.
--
Liberty ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty :Freedom is first earned
lib...@libertysblog.com :by demanding it. It's lost by
http://www.libertysblog.com :forgetting its value.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Maxwell
<mode...@deadspam.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:36:16 -0400, Bill Maxwell
><bill_maxwell_n...@notreal.net> wrote:
>
>>A lot of companies don't keep the list secret.
>
> Which companies, for example?
Well, here are a few for products I use:
NewsBin Pro:
http://forums.newsbin.com/viewforum.php?f=5&sid=55f9f4548893342757fbdb518136e8dc
Caphyon:
http://www.advancedinstaller.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=f1742e67f27b4fc345d313dc836698d4
RMS CRM (ok, this isn't a commercial company, but is open source.
Actually, there are lots of these types of things on SourceForge):
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=88850&atid=588131
---------------------------------
Here are some more from a simple Google search (search for individual
words -- not exact phrase -- in "requested feature list", or in "already
requested feature list", etc.):
http://eudorabb.qualcomm.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5
http://forum.parallels.com/thread3599.html
http://www.theill.com/conquercam/wishlist.asp
http://emuleplus.info/features.php
http://forums.warppipe.com/index.php?showtopic=216
http://www.faddensoft.com/ciderpress/requested-features.htm
http://ceruleanstudios.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=13401
http://www.mozilla.org/wishlist-faq.html#features
http://forum.maxthon.com/lofiversion/index.php?t29133.html
http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showthread.php?t=10885
http://codex.wordpress.org/Development_Planning
http://codex.gallery2.org/index.php/Gallery1:Features#Most_Requested_Features
http://www.stikipad.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=5&sid=e8ca451204ef05d56f607818e81fe7d7
http://developer.intuit.com/quickbookssdk/briefing/?lid=leftnav&id=417
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=85595&page=10
http://trac.adiumx.com/wiki/RequestingFeatures
http://forum.parallels.com/archive/index.php/t-3599.html
http://forum.avantbrowser.com/viewtopic.php?t=6574
etc.
--
Bill
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
<erikva...@yahoo.undies.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:49:45 GMT, Jim Higgins plucked a feather from
>Fawkes, dipped it into the ink well and then scribed:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:37:29 GMT, Al Superczynski
>><mode...@deadspam.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 10:13:18 -0700, Mark Prince
>>><agents...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>We do plan on add nested folders, but it may not be in 4.x...
>>>
>>> Thanks, Mark. I couldn't remember if it was in the 4.x stream or
>>>not but wanted to point out to the OP that it _is_ coming.
>>
>>
>>Perhaps I should have asked whether it's coming in my lifetime?
>
>Christmas is coming and if you live long enough you'll be a year older
>in 12 months time. But nested folders?
I have never understood the importance that some people give to nested
folders. I use indented desk and folder names.
Carroll Robbins
<vvhmf252gn2uc4qci...@4ax.com> on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 22:28:53
+0100:
>I have never understood the importance that some people give to nested
>folders. I use indented desk and folder names.
Don't you use nested folders in your file system? Do you create all your
folders in the root directory?
--
Carroll Robbins
Mark Lloyd
Apparently, it involves having a VERY large number of folders, and
being able to hide parts of the list. SOME of that can be accomplished
with desks.
--
113 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
Yes, I use nested folders but I don't need them for mail or
newsgroups. My email is sorted into 17 folders using watch filters.
They are grouped by indenting. I can't see any point in nesting them.
My usenet groups don't need any form of nesting. In fact I like them
as they are and wouldn't nest them even if it was possible.
--
Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software
EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
http://www.easynn.com
Luca
> >>I have never understood the importance that some people give to nested
> >>folders. I use indented desk and folder names.
> My email is sorted into 17 folders
I have about a hundred email folders, nested deep to the fourth or fifth
level, the first one being an "account" level.
> My usenet groups don't need any form of nesting.
But I already have four desks for groups. Nesting is necessary here, and even
more the unread count at the desk level.
--
Luca - e-mail: p.stevens at linuxfan.it
Mark Lloyd
<carroll...@ioa.com.invalid> wrote:
File system? The discussion was about the Agent database, not a file
system.
Anyway, the things in the file system are DIRECTORIES! I never
accepted this UN-progress MS wants to inflict on users.
Mark Lloyd
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:43:24 -0400, Carroll Robbins
><carroll...@ioa.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk wrote in
>><vvhmf252gn2uc4qci...@4ax.com> on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 22:28:53
>>+0100:
>>
>>>I have never understood the importance that some people give to nested
>>>folders. I use indented desk and folder names.
>>
>>Don't you use nested folders in your file system? Do you create all your
>>folders in the root directory?
>
>Yes, I use nested folders but I don't need them for mail or
>newsgroups. My email is sorted into 17 folders using watch filters.
>They are grouped by indenting. I can't see any point in nesting them.
>My usenet groups don't need any form of nesting. In fact I like them
>as they are and wouldn't nest them even if it was possible.
I have a few more than that, but not hundreds. I use a similar naming
method, which is all I need.
Al Superczynski
<bill_maxwell_n...@notreal.net> wrote:
>>>A lot of companies don't keep the list secret.
>>
>> Which companies, for example?
>
>
>Well, here are a few...
Impressive list!
Christa
>I have about a hundred email folders, nested deep to the fourth or fifth
>level, the first one being an "account" level.
>
>But I already have four desks for groups. Nesting is necessary here, and even
>more the unread count at the desk level.
I've found my first 'cry for nested folders':
<http://groups.google.nl/group/alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent/msg/2dc265cbdfca0a2f?dmode=source&hl=nl>
dated april 8, 1997 :)
For me actually not having nested folders is a way of
cluttermanagement. I try to keep all my maps in one screen, so that my
folder/groups-list does not need scrolling.
Needless to say I hardly ever manage to reach that goal.
--
Christa
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
>st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk:
>
>> >>I have never understood the importance that some people give to nested
>> >>folders. I use indented desk and folder names.
>
>> My email is sorted into 17 folders
>
>I have about a hundred email folders, nested deep to the fourth or fifth
>level, the first one being an "account" level.
>
Why do you need so many email folders. Do you have one for each
person? I don't keep my emails. They are purged after 30 days.
>> My usenet groups don't need any form of nesting.
>
>But I already have four desks for groups. Nesting is necessary here, and even
>more the unread count at the desk level.
I step through mine with the spacebar. I only subscribe to 54 groups
and this is the only busy one. I'm not into binaries.
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
<mll...@notmail.comnot.invalid> wrote:
>Anyway, the things in the file system are DIRECTORIES! I never
>accepted this UN-progress MS wants to inflict on users.
FOLDERS were used by Apple before Microsoft. It makes more sense than
directories. Files go in folders. Directories are just lists.
Luca
> Why do you need so many email folders. Do you have one for each
> person? I don't keep my emails.
I do. Since ever :-)
Randy
in article <iennf21lcdvjv9gd2...@4ax.com>,
Christa <mevr...@spamadres.nl> wrote:
>I've found my first 'cry for nested folders':
><http://groups.google.nl/group/alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent/msg/2dc265cbdfca0a2f?dmode=source&hl=nl>
>dated april 8, 1997 :)
Someone's got you beat by a year:
>Date: 1996/02/04
>No nested folders (i.e., subfolders) yet, either.
Can anyone beat that?
This reminds me of that story about the guy who found, in an old
sports jacket he hadn't worn for 20 years, a ticket for shoes he'd
left to be repaired. He called the shop, to see if, just by chance,
they still had his shoes after all these years. When they answered,
they said..."Yeah, they'll be ready Tuesday".
Randy
Mark Prince <agents...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>We do plan on add nested folders, but it may not be in 4.x, however.
>Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your patience.
>Date: 1996/02/04
>No nested folders (i.e., subfolders) yet, either.
This reminds me of that story about the guy who found, in an old
Randy
in article <edgvtf$cpq$1...@nnrp.linuxfan.it>,
Luca <mbo...@linuxfan.it> wrote:
>st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk:
>
>> Why do you need so many email folders. Do you have one for each
>> person? I don't keep my emails.
>
>I do. Since ever :-)
So have I. I can't even believe there is a debate about the need for
nested folders. The only e-mail clients I know that don't offer them,
are online ones, like Yahoo. But my IP host even has nested folders
on their online e-mail client. Apparently, it won't be available in
Agent until 5.x. Is there something hard about adding nested folders?
--Guess it'll be another year or so in the making.
>Date: 1996/02/04
>No nested folders (i.e., subfolders) yet, either.
Can anyone beat that date, in showing how long people have been
requesting nested folders?
Randy
in article <2iejf2dm4uecg2t27...@4ax.com>,
Mark Prince <agents...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>We do plan on add nested folders, but it may not be in 4.x, however.
This is the kind of thing that makes me suspect Agent is deliberately
spreading out important, user desired functionality, between major
releases, to increase profits:
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
wrote:
>
>On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:41:53 +0200,
> in article <edgvtf$cpq$1...@nnrp.linuxfan.it>,
> Luca <mbo...@linuxfan.it> wrote:
>
>>st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk:
>>
>>> Why do you need so many email folders. Do you have one for each
>>> person? I don't keep my emails.
>>
>>I do. Since ever :-)
>
>So have I. I can't even believe there is a debate about the need for
>nested folders.
It looks like the difference is that those who like to keep messages
want nested folders and those who don't keep messages don't care about
nested folders.
Dennis K.
wrote:
>I've found my first 'cry for nested folders':
><http://groups.google.nl/group/alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent/msg/2dc265cbdfca0a2f?dmode=source&hl=nl>
>dated april 8, 1997 :)
Was there a similar cry for desks?
--
Dennis K.
Dennis K.
wrote:
>I've found my first 'cry for nested folders':
><http://groups.google.nl/group/alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent/msg/2dc265cbdfca0a2f?dmode=source&hl=nl>
>dated april 8, 1997 :)
Was there a similar cry for desks?
--
Dennis K.
Dennis K.
wrote:
>I've found my first 'cry for nested folders':
><http://groups.google.nl/group/alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent/msg/2dc265cbdfca0a2f?dmode=source&hl=nl>
>dated april 8, 1997 :)
Was there a similar cry for desks?
--
Dennis K.
Dennis K.
wrote:
>I've found my first 'cry for nested folders':
><http://groups.google.nl/group/alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent/msg/2dc265cbdfca0a2f?dmode=source&hl=nl>
>dated april 8, 1997 :)
Was there a similar cry for desks?
--
Dennis K.
Christa
<Dennis K.>:
just now. Four times ;)
Desks are not the same. It would help if a desk had a mailcount like a
folder. Then I can collapse desks and check them only when there are
new mails.
--
Christa
Dennis K.
wrote:
Sorry about the multiple posts ... I'm having technical difficulties
this morning.
--
Dennis K.
Dennis K.
wrote:
>>Was there a similar cry for desks?
>
>Desks are not the same.
I know that desks are not the same. But it seems that desks have been
offered as a poor man's solution to nested folders. Did Forte think they
were killing two birds with one stone by implementing desks? Was there a
clamor for desks at the time that made it a higher priority than nested
folders?
--
Dennis K.
Liberty
>On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:41:53 +0200,
> in article <edgvtf$cpq$1...@nnrp.linuxfan.it>,
> Luca <mbo...@linuxfan.it> wrote:
>
>>st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk:
>>
>>> Why do you need so many email folders. Do you have one for each
>>> person? I don't keep my emails.
>>
>>I do. Since ever :-)
>
>So have I. I can't even believe there is a debate about the need for
>nested folders.
Its all about whats more important and gets worked on first. I tend to agree
with those that want nested folder, that it is due. Although I really don't
understand the importance that so many folks seem to put on it.
> Apparently, it won't be available in
>Agent until 5.x. Is there something hard about adding nested folders?
Where did you get that idea? When asked Forté was pretty non committal. They
were not committing to a 4.1 or even a 4.x implimentation. That doesn't mean
that isn't going to happen unhtil 5.x
One of the difficulties in adding to it is that will change the data base
structure. So the program will need to modify the old database to fit. Once
that is done Agent will lose backwards compatability to older versions.
>--Guess it'll be another year or so in the making.
--
Liberty ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty :Freedom is first earned
lib...@libertysblog.com :by demanding it. It's lost by
http://www.libertysblog.com :forgetting its value.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
<E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
>In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk)
>wrote in <1clmf29q66a6ltoer...@4ax.com>::
>
>>On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:43:24 -0400, Carroll Robbins
>><carroll...@ioa.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk wrote in
>>><vvhmf252gn2uc4qci...@4ax.com> on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 22:28:53
>>>+0100:
>>>
>>>>I have never understood the importance that some people give to nested
>>>>folders. I use indented desk and folder names.
>>>
>>>Don't you use nested folders in your file system? Do you create all your
>>>folders in the root directory?
>>
>>Yes, I use nested folders but I don't need them for mail or
>>newsgroups. My email is sorted into 17 folders using watch filters.
>>They are grouped by indenting. I can't see any point in nesting them.
>>My usenet groups don't need any form of nesting. In fact I like them
>>as they are and wouldn't nest them even if it was possible.
>
>You wouldn't? Jeez, I would. Usenet is (implicitly) a tree structure, and
>I'd love it if this could be replicated in the group browser.
I don't subscribe to enough groups to need any structuring apart from
simple ordering.
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
<E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
>In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk)
>wrote in <i4onf2djomolpj5u5...@4ax.com>::
>
>>On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 01:08:47 +0200, Luca <mbo...@linuxfan.it> wrote:
>>
>>>st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk:
>>>
>>>> >>I have never understood the importance that some people give to nested
>>>> >>folders. I use indented desk and folder names.
>>>
>>>> My email is sorted into 17 folders
>>>
>>>I have about a hundred email folders, nested deep to the fourth or fifth
>>>level, the first one being an "account" level.
>>>
>>
>>Why do you need so many email folders. Do you have one for each
>>person? I don't keep my emails. They are purged after 30 days.
>
>You're not running a business then? I *need* to keep some emails for many
>years, they're part of the document trail in case of any dispute about who
>said what.
Actually I am. My records are not kept with Agent. I wrote an incident
tracking system years ago that can import any text. It was written for
a client with hundreds of staff but I use a cut down version myself.
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
<E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
>In alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, (st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk)
>wrote in <vvhmf252gn2uc4qci...@4ax.com>::
>
>>On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 05:27:26 +1000, Erik Vastmasd
>><erikva...@yahoo.undies.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:49:45 GMT, Jim Higgins plucked a feather from
>>>Fawkes, dipped it into the ink well and then scribed:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:37:29 GMT, Al Superczynski
>>>><mode...@deadspam.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 10:13:18 -0700, Mark Prince
>>>>><agents...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>We do plan on add nested folders, but it may not be in 4.x...
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Mark. I couldn't remember if it was in the 4.x stream or
>>>>>not but wanted to point out to the OP that it _is_ coming.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps I should have asked whether it's coming in my lifetime?
>>>
>>>Christmas is coming and if you live long enough you'll be a year older
>>>in 12 months time. But nested folders?
>>
>>I have never understood the importance that some people give to nested
>>folders. I use indented desk and folder names.
>
>And does your Windows installation use only 2 layers of directories?
>
That's a totally different situation, we aren't discussing Windows.
>I would like to have, for instance:
>
>ClientA
> - Projects
> - Project1
> - Tenders
> - Work in progress
> - Completed
> - Invoicing
> - Admin
>
>Etc- and possibly even more levels.
>
>
I have that sort of structure in my own tracking software but I don't
need it in Agent.
Randy
in article <7i6of2hs5q411a8l6...@4ax.com>,
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk wrote:
>It looks like the difference is that those who like to keep messages
>want nested folders and those who don't keep messages don't care about
>nested folders.
I did a little research, and apparently, many people have been
requesting nested folders, for a long, long time (See also:
http://tinyurl.com/gc7uq):
Date: 1996/04/18
I don't know if the idea of nested folders has been brought up but I
would really like it. --Glen Scurr
Message-ID: <3175c476...@198.80.55.1>
Date: 1996/02/04
No nested folders (i.e., sub folders) yet, either. --Don Kirkman
Message-ID: <3114fcc4...@nnrp.crl.com>
Date: 1996/04/21
>I don't know if the idea of nested folders has been brought up but I
>would really like it.
This has been brought up repeatedly and is a FRE. I think it's been
planned for a post-1.0 release. -- pixel
Message-ID: <3179a03e...@news.shore.net>
Date: 1996/02/12
I like using nested folders as well. I got used to using them and
would like to use them now in Agent. --Lee Florack
Message-ID: <311feb62...@news.servtech.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002
I've been angling for nested folders since Day +1 of Agent (no
one ever listens to me) -- JmG
Message-ID: <9modbu8f61o7kddft...@4ax.com>
Date: 11 Apr 2002
Forte Agent is a good program but I the possibility to store my email
messages in nested folders. Have anyone a solution of this "problem"?
-- Harry Dekkers
Message-ID: <Xns91ED41D6E35B1...@213.84.69.104>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002
It is widely hoped that Agent 2.0 will have nested folders.
-- Ralph Fox
Message-ID: <3geebu43ibpal1r77...@news.tsnz.net>
These are just a few of *hundreds* of apparent requests for nested
folders, over the years.
--
Date: 1996/04/21
>I don't know if the idea of nested folders has been brought up but I
>would really like it.
This has been brought up repeatedly and is a FRE. I think it's been
planned for a post-1.0 release. -- pixel
Message-ID: <3179a03e...@news.shore.net>
See also: http://tinyurl.com/gc7uq
Nick Spalding
on Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:01:31 GMT:
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:04:06 -0500, Randy <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:41:53 +0200,
> > in article <edgvtf$cpq$1...@nnrp.linuxfan.it>,
> > Luca <mbo...@linuxfan.it> wrote:
> >
> >>st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk:
> >>
> >>> Why do you need so many email folders. Do you have one for each
> >>> person? I don't keep my emails.
> >>
> >>I do. Since ever :-)
> >
> >So have I. I can't even believe there is a debate about the need for
> >nested folders.
>
> Its all about whats more important and gets worked on first. I tend to agree
> with those that want nested folder, that it is due. Although I really don't
> understand the importance that so many folks seem to put on it.
>
> > Apparently, it won't be available in
> >Agent until 5.x. Is there something hard about adding nested folders?
>
> Where did you get that idea? When asked Forté was pretty non committal. They
> were not committing to a 4.1 or even a 4.x implimentation. That doesn't mean
> that isn't going to happen unhtil 5.x
>
> One of the difficulties in adding to it is that will change the data base
> structure. So the program will need to modify the old database to fit. Once
> that is done Agent will lose backwards compatability to older versions.
It already did that in the 2 to 3 transition. It is long overdue anyway in
order to increase the size of the hash fields to get rid of the hash
collision problem, or at least make its probability vanishingly small.
> >--Guess it'll be another year or so in the making.
--
Nick Spalding
XPHomeSP2, Celeron, 1.2GHz, 256MB RAM, 625MB Page file, IE6.0, NTFS
Video adapter: Intel(R) 82845G Screen: LCD 1024x768x60Hz
Nick Spalding
<7i6of2hs5q411a8l6...@4ax.com>
on Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:23:34 +0100:
>
> It looks like the difference is that those who like to keep messages
> want nested folders and those who don't keep messages don't care about
> nested folders.
I keep plenty, pretty much all emails sent or received since 1996, and I
have no need whatever for folders. The archived stuff is just in folders
with the year appended to the name, looking for the name finds me all of
them.
Lars-Erik Østerud
> It looks like the difference is that those who like to keep messages
> want nested folders and those who don't keep messages don't care about
I don't need nested folders. When I select a desk I like to see all
folders (if the subfolders expanded too that could be OK), and I have
a separate desk for my "Archive" folders (not normally visible).
I don't even use subfolders in Outlook at work :-)
--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605
Lars-Erik Østerud
> I keep plenty, pretty much all emails sent or received since 1996, and I
> have no need whatever for folders. The archived stuff is just in folders
> with the year appended to the name, looking for the name finds me all of
In a separate desk? I now I should have copyrighted my way :-)
Christa
Nope. I doubt wether anybody but for the Forte-crew ever gave any
thought to desks. Never seen them in any other program either, but
that does not say that there aren't any around.
--
Christa
Mark Lloyd
>On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:04:06 -0500, Randy <pulpi...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:41:53 +0200,
>> in article <edgvtf$cpq$1...@nnrp.linuxfan.it>,
>> Luca <mbo...@linuxfan.it> wrote:
>>
>>>st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk:
>>>
>>>> Why do you need so many email folders. Do you have one for each
>>>> person? I don't keep my emails.
>>>
>>>I do. Since ever :-)
>>
>>So have I. I can't even believe there is a debate about the need for
>>nested folders.
>
>It looks like the difference is that those who like to keep messages
>want nested folders and those who don't keep messages don't care about
>nested folders.
You don't need subfolders by date. If you keep a lot of messages, you
could put them all in one folder, and set the display to ort by date.
It' still could be an option so people have the choice to use it or
not.
--
112 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
Mark Lloyd
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:22:51 -0500, Mark Lloyd
><mll...@notmail.comnot.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Anyway, the things in the file system are DIRECTORIES! I never
>>accepted this UN-progress MS wants to inflict on users.
>
>FOLDERS were used by Apple before Microsoft. It makes more sense than
>directories. Files go in folders. Directories are just lists.
I suppose it depends on what you get used to. I learned to use
directories, and will probably always think of calling the things
"folders" as anti-progress (it refers to a pre-computer system of
record keeping. FOLDING a piece of paper has nothing to do with data
storage on a computer).
Notice it's just about what you CALL the thing, not its identity.
BTW, (considering that last thing) I saw an article in yesterday's
paper that used the words "astronomers have eliminated a planet". I
wish they's add that NO SUCH THING HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. They just
changed the definition of a word (they no longer consider Pluto to be
a planet. Nothing has actually happened to Pluto). Earlier they said
Charon (Pluto's natural satellite) was a planet too. Nothing happened
to Charon either.
st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk
<mll...@notmail.comnot.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 09:26:59 +0100, st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:22:51 -0500, Mark Lloyd
>><mll...@notmail.comnot.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Anyway, the things in the file system are DIRECTORIES! I never
>>>accepted this UN-progress MS wants to inflict on users.
>>
>>FOLDERS were used by Apple before Microsoft. It makes more sense than
>>directories. Files go in folders. Directories are just lists.
>
>I suppose it depends on what you get used to. I learned to use
>directories, and will probably always think of calling the things
>"folders" as anti-progress (it refers to a pre-computer system of
>record keeping. FOLDING a piece of paper has nothing to do with data
>storage on a computer).
But neither does directory. It's just a list, not a container.
I was working on operating system software before Unix came along with
directories so I never really got into the term. It never made any
sense to me. Files were in libraries and groups referenced by a
catalogue.
Folder makes more sense to me. At least it's a container rather than a
list.
Randy
in article <ilhof25dkepucsese...@4ax.com>,
Christa <mevr...@spamadres.nl> wrote:
I like desks, but completely concur about nested folders. Nested
folders have been roundly requested since the early years of Agent.
--
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002
I've been angling for nested folders since Day +1 of Agent (no
one ever listens to me) -- JmG
Message-ID: <9modbu8f61o7kddft...@4ax.com>
See also: http://tinyurl.com/gc7uq
Randy
in article <crhof2lmbqjb589og...@4ax.com>,
Mark Lloyd <mll...@notmail.comnot.invalid> wrote:
>
>You don't need subfolders by date. If you keep a lot of messages, you
>could put them all in one folder, and set the display to ort by date.
>It' still could be an option so people have the choice to use it or
>not.
That's the spirit. Ask not what Agent can do for you, ask what you
can do for Agent. Heck, who needs nested threads in Usenet, or even
different Usenet groups. Why don't we just put everything into one
folder, and start making super powerful and quick search engines!
--
Date: 11 Apr 2002
Forte Agent is a good program but I the possibility to store my email
messages in nested folders. Have anyone a solution of this "problem"?
-- Harry Dekkers
Message-ID: <Xns91ED41D6E35B1...@213.84.69.104>
See also: http://tinyurl.com/gc7uq