Frode Petersen: >>>> For messages where one of the rules apply >>>> Rule 1: 'List-Id' contains 'fedora-list.redhat.com' >>>> Rule 2: 'To' contains 'fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx' >>>> Move to chosen folder. Anne Wilson: >>> I'd add >>> Rule 3: 'CC' contains 'fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx' Tim: >> I wouldn't filter a list with either of the 2nd or 3rd rules. It makes >> for mistakes: >> >> If you're on lists with list-id headers, they're redundant, at best. Anne Wilson: > So Rule 1 matches. And is all that's needed, for lists that have them. I'd only set up different rules for other lists (without them). >> If you're on both lists that something gets crossposted to, all the mail >> goes to one folder, instead of one to each appropriate folder. > True, but I've never found it to be a huge problem. It might be if you're trying to follow a thread. At least, if you're aware of this, you know where to look. But it's a surprise that's easily avoided. >> Private replies including a list address as a recipient get treated as >> list mail, and that mayn't be appropriate. I've seen quite a few people >> get their knickers in a twist because someone replied publically to what >> they sent privately, because the respondent never noticed it. > That one is serious. So what's your solution where List-Id doesn't exist? Most lists seem to have them. For those that don't, I use specific rules using the to or reply-to addresses. I don't use generic recipient rules, because then any match counts (to, cc, etc.), even when they're not really appropriate. >> Likewise for spam. It erroneously ends up in your list mail folder. > That I've never found. You're lucky, then. I've seen spam that's harvested addresses from lists (list addresses and participants addresses). -- (This box runs FC5, my others run FC4 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
