Why Isn't "Stop Processing More Rules" a Default?

I don't seem to be getting straight information about this issue. In
Outlook Express' mail rules you never, EVER had to check off "Stop
Processing More Rules" to complete a mail rule, and in any event this
tickbox was so far down the list of options that one never saw it. Several
people on this newsgroup have complained about this and wondered why they
never had to check it off before upgrading to Windows 7 and Live Mail (since
Outlook Express has been quietly retired).

A point to consider is that, when one creates a mail rule, the
message(s)-in-question are in the Inbox, awaiting movement to the folders
one wants them to be in from now on. As it was, one could build the rule
(without this obscure option "Stop processing more rules") and then execute
it upon Inbox, to put messages where you want them, and then trust in the
fact that, in the future, messages received from would
go into the "Blow, Joe" folder.

Somehow, this doesn't work in the same way anymore, as we are told on this
newsgroup, and furthermore the mail rules now don't work at all unless one
checks off "Stop processing more rules". When I was under XP with Outlook
Express, and somehow despite having quite a number of mail rules, Apply Now
ALWAYS worked in distributing the messages to their appropriate folders,
whether already received, in sub-folders, or while in the process of being
received. The ONLY time mail rules didn't work was an occasion some years
ago when my account data got corrupt.

If "Stop processing more rules" is a requirement for ones mail rules to work
at all, why isn't it already checked off for you, or an innate default one
doesn't have to check off at all, much less even see? The explanation
given, that one has supposedly always had to check this option off in Live
Mail, is perhaps okay-fine with Live Mail users who've either never used
mail rules, or perhaps like scrolling all the way to near-end of the list to
check it. But this operation is just not consistent with the manner in
which anyone who's ever used mail rules would expect.

Inconsistent operation on this level is usually attributable to one of
several causes: design flaws, anomalous behavior, or outright bugs. In
testing software since 1982, I have learned to identify inconsistency in
operation, in order to assist in improving the product-in-hand before it is
released. (There are other problems in Live Mail that I will address in the
future, such as the inconsistent action one gets when hitting Ctrl-Delete to
delete the next word. Where'd the cursor go, folks? See for yourself).

In the event that Marketing drones are directing the dissemination of
information about Live Mail, it's an easy bet that 75% of the information
one gets will be smoke and mirrors combined with a smattering of technical
fact. That's something one learns from testing software for major
corporations that one learns in years.

Answers, please.


--
Stephen Goodman
http://www.vimeo.com/spgoodman
http://www.myspace.com/spgoodman

In Outlook Express, if the action was Delete It From Server, or Do Not
Download From Server, all the other boxes became uncheckable. Any other
rule, such as Delete it, or Move it, required a manual checking of the Stop
Processing More Rules box. It was never checked by itself. There are a few
instances where you wouldn't want to check that box, but very rarely. I see
no difference between OE and WLMail.
--

Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP [Mail]
Imperial Beach, CA


"Stephen Goodman" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I don't seem to be getting straight information about this issue. In
>Outlook Express' mail rules you never, EVER had to check off "Stop
>Processing More Rules" to complete a mail rule, and in any event this
>tickbox was so far down the list of options that one never saw it. Several
>people on this newsgroup have complained about this and wondered why they
>never had to check it off before upgrading to Windows 7 and Live Mail
>(since Outlook Express has been quietly retired).
>
> A point to consider is that, when one creates a mail rule, the
> message(s)-in-question are in the Inbox, awaiting movement to the folders
> one wants them to be in from now on. As it was, one could build the rule
> (without this obscure option "Stop processing more rules") and then
> execute it upon Inbox, to put messages where you want them, and then trust
> in the fact that, in the future, messages received from
> would go into the "Blow, Joe" folder.
>
> Somehow, this doesn't work in the same way anymore, as we are told on this
> newsgroup, and furthermore the mail rules now don't work at all unless one
> checks off "Stop processing more rules". When I was under XP with Outlook
> Express, and somehow despite having quite a number of mail rules, Apply
> Now ALWAYS worked in distributing the messages to their appropriate
> folders, whether already received, in sub-folders, or while in the process
> of being received. The ONLY time mail rules didn't work was an occasion
> some years ago when my account data got corrupt.
>
> If "Stop processing more rules" is a requirement for ones mail rules to
> work at all, why isn't it already checked off for you, or an innate
> default one doesn't have to check off at all, much less even see? The
> explanation given, that one has supposedly always had to check this option
> off in Live Mail, is perhaps okay-fine with Live Mail users who've either
> never used mail rules, or perhaps like scrolling all the way to near-end
> of the list to check it. But this operation is just not consistent with
> the manner in which anyone who's ever used mail rules would expect.
>
> Inconsistent operation on this level is usually attributable to one of
> several causes: design flaws, anomalous behavior, or outright bugs. In
> testing software since 1982, I have learned to identify inconsistency in
> operation, in order to assist in improving the product-in-hand before it
> is released. (There are other problems in Live Mail that I will address
> in the future, such as the inconsistent action one gets when hitting
> Ctrl-Delete to delete the next word. Where'd the cursor go, folks? See
> for yourself).
>
> In the event that Marketing drones are directing the dissemination of
> information about Live Mail, it's an easy bet that 75% of the information
> one gets will be smoke and mirrors combined with a smattering of technical
> fact. That's something one learns from testing software for major
> corporations that one learns in years.
>
> Answers, please.
>
>
> --
> Stephen Goodman
> http://www.vimeo.com/spgoodman
> http://www.myspace.com/spgoodman
>
>
>

"Stephen Goodman" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I don't seem to be getting straight information about this issue. In
> Outlook Express' mail rules you never, EVER had to check off "Stop
> Processing More Rules" to complete a mail rule, and in any event this
> tickbox was so far down the list of options that one never saw it.
> Several people on this newsgroup have complained about this and wondered
> why they
never had to check it off before upgrading to Windows 7 and Live Mail
(since Outlook Express has been quietly retired).

OE has not been 'retired', and won't be until XP ceases to be supported in
2014. And the Stop processing command was important in OE, too. You may
have been lucky that not invoking it didn't disturb the way your rules
worked.

> A point to consider is that, when one creates a mail rule, the
> message(s)-in-question are in the Inbox, awaiting movement to the folders
> one wants them to be in from now on.

That rather assumes that rules are only used to Move messages from one
folder to another. They are much more powerful than that.

> As it was, one could build the rule (without this obscure option "Stop
> processing more rules") and then execute it upon Inbox, to put messages
> where you want them, and then trust in the fact that, in the future,
> messages received from would go into the "Blow,
> Joe" folder.

What if Joe Blow happened to be a member of your tennis club, and you had a
rule that said that any message with 'tennis' in the Subject line was to be
moved to the Tennis folder? Which folder should a message from Joe about
Tennis be moved to? If the 'Move to Tennis folder' was invoked first,
without a 'Stop' clause, then WLMail would happily flag it for moving to
that folder. It would then process the 'Move to Blow, Joe folder' rule and,
again, happily flag it for moving to that folder. So, with a Stop clause on
the first rule, the message would end up in the Tennis folder. Without it,
it would end up in Joe's folder. See?

> Somehow, this doesn't work in the same way anymore, as we are told on
> this newsgroup,

These rules work in precisely the same way they did in OE.

> and furthermore the mail rules now don't work at all unless one checks
> off "Stop processing more rules".

The rules work as entered.

> When I was under XP with Outlook Express, and somehow despite having
> quite a number of mail rules, Apply Now ALWAYS worked in distributing
> the messages to their appropriate folders, whether already received, in
> sub-folders, or while in the process of being received. The ONLY time
> mail rules didn't work was an occasion some years ago when my account
> data got corrupt.

You have already been told about the bug which affects rules involving the
From: line when Applied Now - and how to work around it.

> If "Stop processing more rules" is a requirement for ones mail rules to
> work at all, why isn't it already checked off for you, or an innate
> default one doesn't have to check off at all, much less even see? The
> explanation given, that one has supposedly always had to check this
> option off in Live Mail, is perhaps okay-fine with Live Mail users who've
> either never used mail rules, or perhaps like scrolling all the way to
> near-end of the list to check it. But this operation is just not
> consistent with the manner in which anyone who's ever used mail rules
> would expect.

You're making a lot of assumptions there, one of which is that rules are
only used to Move messages from one folder to another. Many rules do not
require a Stop clause. Taking the earlier example again, suppose Joe Blow
is your brother-in-law, and as such, a member of the 'Family' clan. You
could have a rule which Highlights messages from family members Green. You
could then at a glance see which Tennis messages came from family members.
The Highlight rule should not in this case have a Stop clause. Move is only
one of *eleven* different options for rule actions.

> Inconsistent operation on this level is usually attributable to one of
> several causes: design flaws, anomalous behavior, or outright bugs. In
> testing software since 1982, I have learned to identify inconsistency in
> operation, in order to assist in improving the product-in-hand before it
> is released.

I think you'll find that message rules exhibit exemplary consistency, with
the one exception of the aforementioned bug. They are rigidly applied, in
the order that they appear in the rules list. You could spend an evening
constructing a flow chart to see how they would apply to a number of test
messages, and then seeing what happens in reality.

I've just checked: I have 43 Mail message rules for all sorts of purposes.
Some Move messages, some Copy them, some Highlight them, some Mark them as
Read and some Delete them. I have 26 different accounts, of which 21 are
POP3, four HTTP and one IMAP. All my mail ends up in the right folders, in
the right colours; my POP Junk ends up in a single folder, and all my
Deleted POP messages end up in one folder ready for disposal. Sure, it took
time, trial and error to get the system into this state, but I have been
using WLMail since the summer of 2006.

Construct rules wisely and they'll do what you want, religiously.
--
Noel

<rants snipped>

"Bruce Hagen" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In Outlook Express, if the action was Delete It From Server, or Do Not
> Download From Server, all the other boxes became uncheckable. Any other
> rule, such as Delete it, or Move it, required a manual checking of the
> Stop Processing More Rules box. It was never checked by itself. There are
> a few instances where you wouldn't want to check that box, but very
> rarely. I see no difference between OE and WLMail.

Except that you didn't have to manually select "Stop processing more rules"
every time you make a mail rule in OE. That's a pretty big, and fairly
unsupportable, difference. And undiscussed for the most part.

> --
>
> Bruce Hagen
> MS-MVP [Mail]
> Imperial Beach, CA
>
>
> "Stephen Goodman" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>I don't seem to be getting straight information about this issue. In
>>Outlook Express' mail rules you never, EVER had to check off "Stop
>>Processing More Rules" to complete a mail rule, and in any event this
>>tickbox was so far down the list of options that one never saw it.
>>Several people on this newsgroup have complained about this and wondered
>>why they never had to check it off before upgrading to Windows 7 and Live
>>Mail (since Outlook Express has been quietly retired).
>>
>> A point to consider is that, when one creates a mail rule, the
>> message(s)-in-question are in the Inbox, awaiting movement to the folders
>> one wants them to be in from now on. As it was, one could build the rule
>> (without this obscure option "Stop processing more rules") and then
>> execute it upon Inbox, to put messages where you want them, and then
>> trust in the fact that, in the future, messages received from
>> would go into the "Blow, Joe" folder.
>>
>> Somehow, this doesn't work in the same way anymore, as we are told on
>> this newsgroup, and furthermore the mail rules now don't work at all
>> unless one checks off "Stop processing more rules". When I was under XP
>> with Outlook Express, and somehow despite having quite a number of mail
>> rules, Apply Now ALWAYS worked in distributing the messages to their
>> appropriate folders, whether already received, in sub-folders, or while
>> in the process of being received. The ONLY time mail rules didn't work
>> was an occasion some years ago when my account data got corrupt.
>>
>> If "Stop processing more rules" is a requirement for ones mail rules to
>> work at all, why isn't it already checked off for you, or an innate
>> default one doesn't have to check off at all, much less even see? The
>> explanation given, that one has supposedly always had to check this
>> option off in Live Mail, is perhaps okay-fine with Live Mail users who've
>> either never used mail rules, or perhaps like scrolling all the way to
>> near-end of the list to check it. But this operation is just not
>> consistent with the manner in which anyone who's ever used mail rules
>> would expect.
>>
>> Inconsistent operation on this level is usually attributable to one of
>> several causes: design flaws, anomalous behavior, or outright bugs. In
>> testing software since 1982, I have learned to identify inconsistency in
>> operation, in order to assist in improving the product-in-hand before it
>> is released. (There are other problems in Live Mail that I will address
>> in the future, such as the inconsistent action one gets when hitting
>> Ctrl-Delete to delete the next word. Where'd the cursor go, folks? See
>> for yourself).
>>
>> In the event that Marketing drones are directing the dissemination of
>> information about Live Mail, it's an easy bet that 75% of the information
>> one gets will be smoke and mirrors combined with a smattering of
>> technical fact. That's something one learns from testing software for
>> major corporations that one learns in years.
>>
>> Answers, please.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Goodman
>> http://www.vimeo.com/spgoodman
>> http://www.myspace.com/spgoodman
>>
>>
>>
>

"Ildhund" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Stephen Goodman" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> I don't seem to be getting straight information about this issue. In
>> Outlook Express' mail rules you never, EVER had to check off "Stop
>> Processing More Rules" to complete a mail rule, and in any event this
>> tickbox was so far down the list of options that one never saw it.
>> Several people on this newsgroup have complained about this and wondered
>> why they
> never had to check it off before upgrading to Windows 7 and Live Mail
> (since Outlook Express has been quietly retired).
>
> OE has not been 'retired', and won't be until XP ceases to be supported in
> 2014.

Perhaps the quotes belong around it. Is OE available for Windows 7 then?

> And the Stop processing command was important in OE, too.

But never required to be checked every time you made a mail rule.

> You may have been lucky that not invoking it didn't disturb the way your
> rules worked.

Lucky for over ten years, huh? Bullocks.

>> A point to consider is that, when one creates a mail rule, the
>> message(s)-in-question are in the Inbox, awaiting movement to the folders
>> one wants them to be in from now on.
>
> That rather assumes that rules are only used to Move messages from one
> folder to another. They are much more powerful than that.

What else does one do with mail rules but manage messages and their
placement, whether in a folder or in Deleted Items, or forwarding to another
address? Those three tasks have been operating fine without "SPMR" until...
now. Perhaps some folks should stop acting as if I'm attacking Microsoft or
Live Mail, and focus on improving the product so it acts in a consistent
manner.

>> As it was, one could build the rule (without this obscure option "Stop
>> processing more rules") and then execute it upon Inbox, to put messages
>> where you want them, and then trust in the fact that, in the future,
>> messages received from would go into the "Blow,
>> Joe" folder.
>
> What if Joe Blow happened to be a member of your tennis club, and you had
> a rule that said that any message with 'tennis' in the Subject line was to
> be moved to the Tennis folder? Which folder should a message from Joe
> about Tennis be moved to? If the 'Move to Tennis folder' was invoked
> first, without a 'Stop' clause, then WLMail would happily flag it for
> moving to that folder. It would then process the 'Move to Blow, Joe
> folder' rule and, again, happily flag it for moving to that folder. So,
> with a Stop clause on the first rule, the message would end up in the
> Tennis folder. Without it, it would end up in Joe's folder. See?

Since I didn't have such multiple-stance situations with my mail messages
except in one case where I got email from a fellow who worked at NASA, and
got a newsletter from another NASA section, it was never an issue. I was
never required before to have the box checked for SPMR, but the behavior of
LM has certainly changed the rules. If anyone would come forward and say
that the non-requirement to manually check the box for SPMR was a bug in
Outlook Express, this all might be a bit more believable.


>> Somehow, this doesn't work in the same way anymore, as we are told on
>> this newsgroup,
>
> These rules work in precisely the same way they did in OE.

That is not true. Period.

>> and furthermore the mail rules now don't work at all unless one checks
>> off "Stop processing more rules".
>
> The rules work as entered.

Apparently not. I have gone through all my rules and manually entered the
damned checkbox for SPMR for every one. Yet, when one hits Apply Now what
is the default folder for processing? Storage Folders, not inbox. And,
surprise, they don't really work all the time, having been mistakenly put in
Junk Mail despite having a rule to just put it in a folder and SPMR.

>> When I was under XP with Outlook Express, and somehow despite having
>> quite a number of mail rules, Apply Now ALWAYS worked in distributing
>> the messages to their appropriate folders, whether already received, in
>> sub-folders, or while in the process of being received. The ONLY time
>> mail rules didn't work was an occasion some years ago when my account
>> data got corrupt.
>
> You have already been told about the bug which affects rules involving the
> From: line when Applied Now - and how to work around it.

So when will it be fixed?

>> If "Stop processing more rules" is a requirement for ones mail rules to
>> work at all, why isn't it already checked off for you, or an innate
>> default one doesn't have to check off at all, much less even see? The
>> explanation given, that one has supposedly always had to check this
>> option off in Live Mail, is perhaps okay-fine with Live Mail users who've
>> either never used mail rules, or perhaps like scrolling all the way to
>> near-end of the list to check it. But this operation is just not
>> consistent with the manner in which anyone who's ever used mail rules
>> would expect.
>
> You're making a lot of assumptions there, one of which is that rules are
> only used to Move messages from one folder to another.

Your own assumption there is quite incorrect, and I never wrote such a
thing. I said that they've performed this simple function without having to
manually check SPMR for as long as Outlook Express has been running, and yet
it is being insisted that the exact opposite should be the case.

> Many rules do not require a Stop clause. Taking the earlier example again,
> suppose Joe Blow is your brother-in-law, and as such, a member of the
> 'Family' clan. You could have a rule which Highlights messages from family
> members Green. You could then at a glance see which Tennis messages came
> from family members. The Highlight rule should not in this case have a
> Stop clause. Move is only one of *eleven* different options for rule
> actions.

I'll have to plow back a week and find the message claiming that one always
has to check SPMR, and that this has always been the case? I think not.

>> Inconsistent operation on this level is usually attributable to one of
>> several causes: design flaws, anomalous behavior, or outright bugs. In
>> testing software since 1982, I have learned to identify inconsistency in
>> operation, in order to assist in improving the product-in-hand before it
>> is released.
>
> I think you'll find that message rules exhibit exemplary consistency, with
> the one exception of the aforementioned bug. They are rigidly applied, in
> the order that they appear in the rules list. You could spend an evening
> constructing a flow chart to see how they would apply to a number of test
> messages, and then seeing what happens in reality.

How about some real messages instead of theoretic ones? That's what the
real world experiences in reality. Again, get it out of your head that I'm
attacking Microsoft or LM. "Exemplary" my butt. It worked in OE. It
doesn't under LM, because of what you admit is a bug.

> I've just checked: I have 43 Mail message rules for all sorts of purposes.
> Some Move messages, some Copy them, some Highlight them, some Mark them as
> Read and some Delete them. I have 26 different accounts, of which 21 are
> POP3, four HTTP and one IMAP. All my mail ends up in the right folders, in
> the right colours; my POP Junk ends up in a single folder, and all my
> Deleted POP messages end up in one folder ready for disposal. Sure, it
> took time, trial and error to get the system into this state, but I have
> been using WLMail since the summer of 2006.
>
> Construct rules wisely and they'll do what you want, religiously.

Don't take this personally but taking some sage-like tone to imply that my
simple requirements somehow constitute 'unwise construction' is old hat, and
doesn't work. All I want, and all I've ever used mail rules for, is to move
to a folder, forward to another address, or delete said message. Without
having to manually check of Stop Processing More Rules, as has been the case
since Outlook Express began.


--
Stephen Goodman
http://www.vimeo.com/spgoodman
http://www.myspace.com/spgoodman

"Stephen Goodman" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
> "Bruce Hagen" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> In Outlook Express, if the action was Delete It From Server, or Do Not
>> Download From Server, all the other boxes became uncheckable. Any other
>> rule, such as Delete it, or Move it, required a manual checking of the
>> Stop Processing More Rules box. It was never checked by itself. There are
>> a few instances where you wouldn't want to check that box, but very
>> rarely. I see no difference between OE and WLMail.
>
> Except that you didn't have to manually select "Stop processing more
> rules" every time you make a mail rule in OE. That's a pretty big, and
> fairly unsupportable, difference. And undiscussed for the most part.


Yes you did! It was never checked automatically. I have OE right here and
can attest to it. There is absolutely no difference between creating OE and
WLMail rules.
--

Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP [Mail]
Imperial Beach, CA

















>> --
>>
>> Bruce Hagen
>> MS-MVP [Mail]
>> Imperial Beach, CA
>>
>>
>> "Stephen Goodman" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>>I don't seem to be getting straight information about this issue. In
>>>Outlook Express' mail rules you never, EVER had to check off "Stop
>>>Processing More Rules" to complete a mail rule, and in any event this
>>>tickbox was so far down the list of options that one never saw it.
>>>Several people on this newsgroup have complained about this and wondered
>>>why they never had to check it off before upgrading to Windows 7 and Live
>>>Mail (since Outlook Express has been quietly retired).
>>>
>>> A point to consider is that, when one creates a mail rule, the
>>> message(s)-in-question are in the Inbox, awaiting movement to the
>>> folders one wants them to be in from now on. As it was, one could build
>>> the rule (without this obscure option "Stop processing more rules") and
>>> then execute it upon Inbox, to put messages where you want them, and
>>> then trust in the fact that, in the future, messages received from
>>> would go into the "Blow, Joe" folder.
>>>
>>> Somehow, this doesn't work in the same way anymore, as we are told on
>>> this newsgroup, and furthermore the mail rules now don't work at all
>>> unless one checks off "Stop processing more rules". When I was under XP
>>> with Outlook Express, and somehow despite having quite a number of mail
>>> rules, Apply Now ALWAYS worked in distributing the messages to their
>>> appropriate folders, whether already received, in sub-folders, or while
>>> in the process of being received. The ONLY time mail rules didn't work
>>> was an occasion some years ago when my account data got corrupt.
>>>
>>> If "Stop processing more rules" is a requirement for ones mail rules to
>>> work at all, why isn't it already checked off for you, or an innate
>>> default one doesn't have to check off at all, much less even see? The
>>> explanation given, that one has supposedly always had to check this
>>> option off in Live Mail, is perhaps okay-fine with Live Mail users
>>> who've either never used mail rules, or perhaps like scrolling all the
>>> way to near-end of the list to check it. But this operation is just not
>>> consistent with the manner in which anyone who's ever used mail rules
>>> would expect.
>>>
>>> Inconsistent operation on this level is usually attributable to one of
>>> several causes: design flaws, anomalous behavior, or outright bugs. In
>>> testing software since 1982, I have learned to identify inconsistency in
>>> operation, in order to assist in improving the product-in-hand before it
>>> is released. (There are other problems in Live Mail that I will address
>>> in the future, such as the inconsistent action one gets when hitting
>>> Ctrl-Delete to delete the next word. Where'd the cursor go, folks? See
>>> for yourself).
>>>
>>> In the event that Marketing drones are directing the dissemination of
>>> information about Live Mail, it's an easy bet that 75% of the
>>> information one gets will be smoke and mirrors combined with a
>>> smattering of technical fact. That's something one learns from testing
>>> software for major corporations that one learns in years.
>>>
>>> Answers, please.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stephen Goodman
>>> http://www.vimeo.com/spgoodman
>>> http://www.myspace.com/spgoodman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

You mentioned using OE for 10 years. Did you use the same version for the
10 years?
Adding Stop processing has been necessary for a long time.
http://www.insideoe.com/faqs/why.htm#rules
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/217243
I don't know if your rules have been migrated through different upgrades.
I remember this discussion when people starting using Windows Mail rules.
--
Ron Sommer
MS MVP-Mail

"Stephen Goodman" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
> "Ildhund" <> wrote in message
> news:...
snipped
>
>> And the Stop processing command was important in OE, too.
>
> But never required to be checked every time you made a mail rule.
>
snipped

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:37:42 -0000, Stephen Goodman wrote:

> I don't seem to be getting straight information about this issue. In
> Outlook Express' mail rules you never, EVER had to check off "Stop
> Processing More Rules" to complete a mail rule ...

Actually, I did. If I wanted the Rule Action to fire when the conditions of
the rule were met. Otherwise, the rule processor doesn't fire, and continues
on to the next rule; if no rule has "Stop processing more rules", when the
processor finally fired, the last rule whose conditions were met fired.
Sometimes causing unexpected, and unwanted action.

> ... and in any event this tickbox was so far down the list of options that
> one never saw it.

Indeed. It took me a while to figure out why some of my rules weren't firing
properly; and to look farther down the list for an option that would allow a
rule to fire properly.

> Several people on this newsgroup have complained about this and wondered
> why
> they never had to check it off before upgrading to Windows 7 and Live Mail
> (since Outlook Express has been quietly retired).

They probably never noticed the issues involved before this. It has nothing
to do with either Windows 7, or with Windows Live Mail. The WLMail rules
work on the same conditions as the MS Outlook Express rules.

> A point to consider is that, when one creates a mail rule, the
> message(s)-in-question are in the Inbox, awaiting movement to the folders
> one wants them to be in from now on. As it was, one could build the rule
> (without this obscure option "Stop processing more rules") and then
> execute it upon Inbox, to put messages where you want them, and then trust
> in the fact that, in the future, messages received from
> would go into the "Blow, Joe" folder.

Okay. Try to follow me. If there is a list of rules, and none have "Stop
processing more rules checked", the rule processor will process the entire
list of rules, for a particular email, then trigger the action of the last
rule which has matching conditions. If that rule triggers the desired
action, there is no problem. Things just work. But, if there is another rule
in the list which follows the desired action, and it has a different,
undesired action, that rule action will be triggered. Perhaps some few got
away with things by ordering the rules, such that no rules with undesired
actions would match the conditions for a particular email.

The rule processor is kind of like a program compiler; and writing rules is
kind of like writing programs.

> Somehow, this doesn't work in the same way anymore, as we are told on this
> newsgroup, and furthermore the mail rules now don't work at all unless one
> checks off "Stop processing more rules". When I was under XP with Outlook
> Express, and somehow despite having quite a number of mail rules, Apply
> Now ALWAYS worked in distributing the messages to their appropriate
> folders, whether already received, in sub-folders, or while in the process
> of being received. The ONLY time mail rules didn't work was an occasion
> some years ago when my account data got corrupt.
>
> If "Stop processing more rules" is a requirement for ones mail rules to
> work at all, why isn't it already checked off for you ...

Probably because it is not always necessary. I just checked some MSOE rules,
and figured out: If the rule conditions for the tenth rule are matched, and
none of the conditions for the following thirty rules are matched, when the
rule processor fires, the action of the tenth rule will be applied to that
message. The purpose of the "Stop processing more rules" is to bail from the
rule processor when the conditions match.

> ...or an innate default one doesn't have to check off at all, much less
> even see?

Because one doesn't always want a rule to fire on the conditions of a
particular rule.

> The explanation given, that one has supposedly always had to check this
> option off
> in Live Mail, is perhaps okay-fine with Live Mail users who've either
> never used mail rules ...

Which is probably over half of the users of email clients.

> ... or perhaps like scrolling all the way to near-end of the list to check
> it. But this operation is just not consistent with the manner in which
> anyone who's ever used mail rules would expect.

Actually, having learned the quirks of rules in MS Outlook Express, the
behavior of the WLMail rules is expected, and understood, here.

> Inconsistent operation on this level is usually attributable to one of
> several causes: design flaws, anomalous behavior, or outright bugs.

Or PEBKAC.

> Answers, please.

Basically, understand how the rule parser works. It will parse every rule in
the list of rules, for any given email. It will then fire on the last
matching conditions. If the tenth rule conditions are "Where the email is
from <>", and the seventeenth rule conditions are, "Where the
Subject contains 'viagra'", and <> sent you an email with a
Subject line: "Have you been getting more Viagra spam lately", here are the
ways the rules may fire:

The "Joe" rule does not contains, "Stop processing more rules". The parser
finds a match on <>, but doesn't bail from processing. At the
end of the list, the last match was for, "Subject contains Viagra". So the
"Viagra rule" fires. Was that really what you intended?

The "Joe" rule contains, "Stop processing more rules". The parser finds a
match on <>. The parser also encounters the "Stop processing
more rules" condition. So the parser fires on the "Joe" rule, the action for
the "Joe" rule is performed, and the parser starts working on the next
email.

The workman who does not understand how his tools work, will fail.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:37:42 -0000, Stephen Goodman wrote:

> I don't seem to be getting straight information about this issue.

I tried. Twice. My posts are not posting.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Inline.

"Stephen Goodman" <> wrote in message news:...
>
> Is OE available for Windows 7 then?

No. XP was the last Windows OS in which you can use OE.

>> And the Stop processing command was important in OE, too.
>
> But never required to be checked every time you made a mail rule.

All I know is that I used quite a few rules in OE6, and they would not
operate reliably without adding the 'Stop processing...' to each rule.

--
Gary VanderMolen, Microsoft MVP (Mail)
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/def...le/vandermolen