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

Surely you are just arguing to be arguing . . . . . . and it's become very
boring at this point. It seems everyone but you has had to use SPMR in
Outlook long ago to ensure proper handling of their messages. I suppose
your rules were very simply met conditions which didn't compete with any
subsequent rule. Now you've encountered a condition which meets the
conditions of two rules - so pick one already, prioritize and SPMR it, or
rewrite your rule conditions so the renegade email will only respond to the
first one and dump.

Stop trying to make this some sort of marathon thread here - accept what is,
forget what was, and just learn to do it as it now needs to be done.



"Stephen Goodman" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
> "N. Miller" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:13:52 -0000, Stephen Goodman wrote:
>>
>>> "N. Miller" <> wrote in message
>>> news:1t92r0yi9p2ya$....
>>
>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:08:19 -0000, Stephen Goodman wrote:
>>
>>>> If you are going to run tests, try creating two different rules:
>>>>
>>>> Rule 1:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Where From contains ''
>>>> 2. Move to folder 'Me'
>>>>
>>>> Rule 2:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Where Subject contains '[TEST]'.
>>>> 2. Move to folder '[TEST]'.
>>>>
>>>> Now send yourself two test emails (to '<>'), one without
>>>> "[TEST]" in the Subject line, and the other with "[TEST]" in the
>>>> Subject
>>>> line. See which goes where, without that SPMR setting.
>>>>
>>>> My experience is that both messages will wind up in the "[TEST]"
>>>> folder,
>>>> unless I put the SPMR in the first rule.
>>
>>> I'm fairly sure this is the sad fact of operation under Windows Live
>>> Mail,
>>> but that's not the way it worked in Outlook Express, as I never had to
>>> add
>>> SPMR.
>>
>> The fact is that MS Outlook Express has always (since I first used it in
>> 2001) worked as I have described it. My first couple of months became a
>> frustrating experience, trying to figure out why my (complex) growing
>> ruleset was not working as expected; until I learned how to use SPMR. In
>> MS
>> Outlook Express 5.5.
>
> I never had such a complex set of rules as you did I suppose, but I never
> needed to use it in all the years OE has existed. Why is this such a
> difficult fact to digest?
>
>> --
>> Norman
>> ~Oh Lord, why have you come
>> ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
>

"slk759" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Surely you are just arguing to be arguing . . . . . . and it's become very
> boring at this point. It seems everyone but you has had to use SPMR in
> Outlook long ago to ensure proper handling of their messages.

To which I ask again, if it is required to 'ensure proper handling of their
messages', why isn't it a default set to on?

I suggest you not attempt to trivialize the level of expertise found here.
Several of the regular responders here have been official Microsoft beta
testers of Outlook Express (and its newer incarnations) for many years.

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


"Stephen Goodman" <> wrote in message news:eo$st$...
[snip]
> This was NOT the behavior of Outlook
> Express, yet a couple of people with nothing more than personal experience
> of a dissimilar manner to mine claim that it always was.

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:09:39 -0000, Stephen Goodman wrote:

> I don't think I'm so bad at communicating that what I'm saying gets
> completely misunderstood. I have NEVER said SPMR wasn't necessary, just
> that the operation of mail rules in Outlook Express is different from
> WLMail.

Which is exactly the part that is hard to digest. Just because you believe
it to be so, doesn't make it so.

WLMail works as MSOE has always worked; no matter how many times you say
otherwise.

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

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:10:26 -0000, Stephen Goodman wrote:

> "slk759" <> wrote in message
> news:...

>> Surely you are just arguing to be arguing . . . . . . and it's become very
>> boring at this point. It seems everyone but you has had to use SPMR in
>> Outlook long ago to ensure proper handling of their messages.

> To which I ask again, if it is required to 'ensure proper handling of their
> messages', why isn't it a default set to on?

Binary choice. Do it "This Way", and the "That Way" users will complain. Do
it "That Way", and the "This Way" users will complain.

"... you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself ..."
{Ricky Nelson, /Garden Party/}

I am guessing Microsoft is taking the lyrics to heart!

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

Where's the actual data, as opposed to personal experience, then?

"Gary VanderMolen (MVP)" <> wrote in message
news:#...
> I suggest you not attempt to trivialize the level of expertise found here.
> Several of the regular responders here have been official Microsoft beta
> testers of Outlook Express (and its newer incarnations) for many years.
>
> --
> Gary VanderMolen, Microsoft MVP (Mail)
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/def...le/vandermolen
>
>
> "Stephen Goodman" <> wrote in message
> news:eo$st$...
> [snip]
> > This was NOT the behavior of Outlook
>> Express, yet a couple of people with nothing more than personal
>> experience
>> of a dissimilar manner to mine claim that it always was.
>

"N. Miller" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:09:39 -0000, Stephen Goodman wrote:
>
>> I don't think I'm so bad at communicating that what I'm saying gets
>> completely misunderstood. I have NEVER said SPMR wasn't necessary, just
>> that the operation of mail rules in Outlook Express is different from
>> WLMail.
>
> Which is exactly the part that is hard to digest. Just because you believe
> it to be so, doesn't make it so.
>
> WLMail works as MSOE has always worked; no matter how many times you say
> otherwise.

You claim. Bad mirroring-projection don't work, son.

--
Stephen Goodman
http://www.earthlight.tv
http://www.ustream.tv/StephenGoodman
http://www.vimeo.com/spgoodman
http://www.myspace.com/spgoodman