FAQ mail filtering
Andy Furniss
pull everything apart from known addresses like -
-name1,-name2,-name3,-name4+accountname.fsnet.co.uk
as logon.
I've tried replacing + with @ & putting comma after name4 etc already.
TIA.
Andy.
John Patmore
spam....@surfanytime.co.uk says...
> Does filtering the way suggested in the FAQ work for anyone when trying to
> pull everything apart from known addresses like -
>
> -name1,-name2,-name3,-name4+accountname.fsnet.co.uk
What can I say - I apologise for selling you a bum steer.
This was the accepted wisdom passed down through generations (well, from
when the UFAQ was first generated anyway) and... well... it doesn't work
for me either :-(
I use the single name filter so that I don't pick up my daughter's mail,
but have never had occasion to use the multiple filter. You must be the
first person in almost four years to actually try it 'cos, to my
knowledge, no-one has ever queried this.
I'll do some digging around when I get a chance, update the UFAQ
accordingly, and post back if I get a definative answer.
--
Regards,
John Patmore - <mailto:jo...@jpatmore.freeserve.co.uk>
UFAQ: Unofficial Frequently Asked Questions -
<http://www.jpatmore.freeserve.co.uk/ufaq.htm>
Andy Furniss
> In article <5251020.u...@news.freeserve.net>,
> spam....@surfanytime.co.uk says...
> > Does filtering the way suggested in the FAQ work for anyone when trying
> > to pull everything apart from known addresses like -
> >
> > -name1,-name2,-name3,-name4+accountname.fsnet.co.uk
>
> What can I say - I apologise for selling you a bum steer.
>
> This was the accepted wisdom passed down through generations (well, from
> when the UFAQ was first generated anyway) and... well... it doesn't work
> for me either :-(
Thanks for trying - nice FAQ.
Maybe they changed something.
I'm only tryiing to work round deficient (maybe it's just me) mail clients
>
> I use the single name filter so that I don't pick up my daughter's mail,
> but have never had occasion to use the multiple filter. You must be the
> first person in almost four years to actually try it 'cos, to my
> knowledge, no-one has ever queried this.
>
> I'll do some digging around when I get a chance, update the UFAQ
> accordingly, and post back if I get a definative answer.
Have you noticed that FS seem to grab SMTP which is destined for other ISP
servers - handy but sometimes doesn't work - logon error from ISP that OE
is set for.
I'm still not sure whether this is OE wierdness though.
Andy.
Chris Game
> You
> must be the first person in almost four years to actually try it
> 'cos, to my knowledge, no-one has ever queried this.
Not a very 'Frequently Asked Question' then?
:-)
--
===========================================
Chris Game <chrisgame@!yahoo!dotcodotuk>
===========================================
Chiefy
> Have you noticed that FS seem to grab SMTP which is destined for other ISP
> servers - handy but sometimes doesn't work - logon error from ISP that OE
> is set for.
Freeserve redirect all SMTP/25 traffic to their server.
> I'm still not sure whether this is OE wierdness though.
Nope Micro$oft are innocent in this case.
They are responsible for masses of weirdness elsewhere though.
I particularly like the 'press escape if you've forgotten your password'
security feature when logging in to ME.
John Patmore
says...
> Not a very 'Frequently Asked Question' then?
Well, the question is asked fairly often :-)
But obviously this particular solution is not used very often... or, more
likely, no-one has ever bothered to ask why it doesn't work.
Dave D
"John Patmore" <fsn...@nojunk.jpatmore.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1861afe0d...@news.freeserve.net...
> In article <at779a$kl6$2...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, chri...@example.net
> says...
> > Not a very 'Frequently Asked Question' then?
>
> Well, the question is asked fairly often :-)
>
> But obviously this particular solution is not used very often... or, more
> likely, no-one has ever bothered to ask why it doesn't work.
>
D.
John Patmore
spam....@surfanytime.co.uk says...
> John Patmore wrote:
> > In article <5251020.u...@news.freeserve.net>,
> > spam....@surfanytime.co.uk says...
> > > Does filtering the way suggested in the FAQ work for anyone when trying
> > > to pull everything apart from known addresses like -
> > >
> > > -name1,-name2,-name3,-name4+accountname.fsnet.co.uk
> >
>
Well, I can now confirm that it must have worked at some time. I've had a
couple of responses to my enquiries - I've still got one more iron in the
fire.
The following is complements of Mike Mann who took the time and trouble
to find the original posting by Nigel Metheringham of Planet Online, who
designed the Freeserve implementation. In case it's of interest, he wrote
in article <slrn730n1d.eaf.N...@pearl.localnet>, on 23rd
October 1998:
<quote>
>If you want to see all the mail addressed to recipients *other* than
>david, susan and freddie, you can also login to the pop server with
>username -david,-susan,-freddie+macdavies.freeserve.co.uk
>
>and you will see the mail *excluding* that for those people...
>
>BTW Many thanks to Demon for the basic idea, which I have modified,
>built on and generally hacked around. If someone from Demon wishes
>to own up to the original concept (or say who they borrowed it from), I
>will happily buy you a beer or two.
</quote>
This text was copied more or less verbatim into the UFAQ nearly four
years ago.
In fact, it was Clive Feather of Demon who designed the original
concept but that was (and still is) restricted to the "user+hostname"
syntax and doesn't allow "all users except these".
Unfortunately, this syntax is unique to Freeserve. The standard POP3
protocol definition allows only a simple username to be specified.
Demon's implementation of the "+" idea was most innovative and
Freeserve's development of it was even better.
So, either there's a fault or Freeserve have withdrawn the facility. I
suspect the latter, although I've no idea why, because I'm sure that the
syntax used to be described on Freeserve's Web site but I'm equally sure
that it's no longer there. A possibility is that the original
implementation worked when Freeserve was smaller but may not have scaled
to keep pace with the expansion in the number of customers. If that's
so, Freeserve may have moved to a more standard POP3 server design.
My thanks go to Mike for using his own time and effort in digging this
information out and for confirming the original post.
Andy Furniss
Thanks to all for your time.
Andy.
John Patmore
fsn...@nojunk.jpatmore.freeserve.co.uk says...
> > > In article <5251020.u...@news.freeserve.net>,
> > > spam....@surfanytime.co.uk says...
> > > > Does filtering the way suggested in the FAQ work for anyone when trying
> > > > to pull everything apart from known addresses like -
> > > >
> > > > -name1,-name2,-name3,-name4+accountname.fsnet.co.uk
> Well, I can now confirm that it must have worked at some time. I've had a
> couple of responses to my enquiries - I've still got one more iron in the
> fire.
Finally I have an answer. Steve Clarke emailed me asking if it was still
an issue and dropping the hint:
<quote>
It's my understanding that the addresses should be colon (:) separated
not comma separated though. Does that fix it?
</quote>
Yes it does Steve - colon separated name filtering DOES work. I will
ammand the UFAQ accordingly.
Many thanks to Steve for solving this one.
Andy Furniss
> Finally I have an answer. Steve Clarke emailed me asking if it was still
> an issue and dropping the hint:
> <quote>
> It's my understanding that the addresses should be colon (:) separated
> not comma separated though. Does that fix it?
> </quote>
>
> Yes it does Steve - colon separated name filtering DOES work. I will
> ammand the UFAQ accordingly.
>
> Many thanks to Steve for solving this one.
>
Thanks also.
Andy.