rwz viewer for outlook rules
in [General]
|
Prev: Can Distribution List Sent Show Only One Recipient in Emails Recei
Next: How to Switch Identiy in microsoft outlook 2007 and how to login
From: Herman on 16 Dec 2009 17:00 Anyone interested in a rws viewer (that sorts and exports the rules) feel free to download it at www.hgroenewegen.nl
From: VanguardLH on 16 Dec 2009 19:40 Herman wrote: > Anyone interested in a rws viewer (that sorts and exports the rules) > feel free to download it at www. hgroenewegen. nl Redirects to http:// hgroenewegen. atspace. com. This uses a meta-refresh tag: <!--meta http-equiv=refresh content="0; url=http:// home. tiscali. nl/ ~ti013118"--> to redirect again to some tiscali customer's personal web page (if refresh is disabled, you're shown a link to this tiscali page). No thanks. Got a warning about finding the HTML:IFrame-KU[Trj] trojan from the atspace site. Luckily I visited the unknown and untrusted site with all add-ons and scripting disabled. Geez, why not just use the export and import of rules already available in Outlook? There is no point in sorting them. The rules should be ordered according the flow needed to process them in a priority sequence on each e-mail they get exercised. Sorting is stupid. That is not likely the order you should be defining your rules set.
From: Diane Poremsky [MVP] on 17 Dec 2009 07:39 Actually, the ability to sort would be very useful to anyone with many rules - it would allow these users to see what rules they have so they don't duplicate them. In most cases, the order doesn't matter in Outlook - a large % of rules are basic 'if from .... then move to....". The order only matters when more than one rule applies to a message. A better rules editor should sell well but it requires some reverse engineering as there is no documentation or object model for rules. -- Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook] Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/ Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com/ Outlook Tips by email: mailto:dailytips-subscribe-request(a)lists.outlooktips.net EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange: mailto:EMO-NEWSLETTER-SUBSCRIBE-REQUEST(a)PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Poll: What version of Outlook do you use? http://forums.slipstick.com/showthread.php?t=27072 "VanguardLH" <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote in message news:hgbul5$3jn$1(a)news.albasani.net... > Herman wrote: > >> Anyone interested in a rws viewer (that sorts and exports the rules) >> feel free to download it at www. hgroenewegen. nl > > Redirects to http:// hgroenewegen. atspace. com. This uses a meta-refresh > tag: > > <!--meta http-equiv=refresh content="0; url=http:// home. > tiscali. > nl/ ~ti013118"--> > > to redirect again to some tiscali customer's personal web page (if refresh > is disabled, you're shown a link to this tiscali page). > > No thanks. Got a warning about finding the HTML:IFrame-KU[Trj] trojan > from > the atspace site. Luckily I visited the unknown and untrusted site with > all > add-ons and scripting disabled. > > Geez, why not just use the export and import of rules already available in > Outlook? There is no point in sorting them. The rules should be ordered > according the flow needed to process them in a priority sequence on each > e-mail they get exercised. Sorting is stupid. That is not likely the > order > you should be defining your rules set.
From: VanguardLH on 17 Dec 2009 16:55 Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote: > Actually, the ability to sort would be very useful to anyone with many > rules - it would allow these users to see what rules they have so they don't > duplicate them. In most cases, the order doesn't matter in Outlook - a large > % of rules are basic 'if from .... then move to....". The order only matters > when more than one rule applies to a message. > > A better rules editor should sell well but it requires some reverse > engineering as there is no documentation or object model for rules. Okay, say you have a whitelisting rule. If from <someperson> then <whatever>. If you had dozens or hundreds of rules, why would you waste the time have all of the non-applicable rules exercised against this e-mail that you already know you want to keep? Whitelisting (and blacklisting) rules go at the top of your rules list. If an e-mail matches on those rules, there is no point in running any other e-mails against that same e-mail. Granted is that most users never even bother to consider how their e-mails flow through their set of rules.
From: Diane Poremsky [MVP] on 18 Dec 2009 10:31
While it is more efficient if you put the most used rules on top, the speed at which modern computers operate means that it really doesn't matter. The rules editor sucks for more than a handful of rules so few people will organize them for efficiency or remove rules they no longer need (such as for spam addresses). A good 3rd party rules editor would not only allow you to sort rules but also to easily re-arrange them. -- Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook] Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/ Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com/ Outlook Tips by email: mailto:dailytips-subscribe-request(a)lists.outlooktips.net EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange: mailto:EMO-NEWSLETTER-SUBSCRIBE-REQUEST(a)PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM Poll: What version of Outlook do you use? http://forums.slipstick.com/showthread.php?t=27072 "VanguardLH" <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote in message news:hge9bu$ou7$1(a)news.albasani.net... > Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote: > >> Actually, the ability to sort would be very useful to anyone with many >> rules - it would allow these users to see what rules they have so they >> don't >> duplicate them. In most cases, the order doesn't matter in Outlook - a >> large >> % of rules are basic 'if from .... then move to....". The order only >> matters >> when more than one rule applies to a message. >> >> A better rules editor should sell well but it requires some reverse >> engineering as there is no documentation or object model for rules. > > Okay, say you have a whitelisting rule. If from <someperson> then > <whatever>. If you had dozens or hundreds of rules, why would you waste > the > time have all of the non-applicable rules exercised against this e-mail > that > you already know you want to keep? Whitelisting (and blacklisting) rules > go > at the top of your rules list. If an e-mail matches on those rules, there > is no point in running any other e-mails against that same e-mail. > > Granted is that most users never even bother to consider how their e-mails > flow through their set of rules. |