Closed
Bug 11033
Opened 25 years ago
Closed 22 years ago
Filter after the fact (run filters on mail you've already received - apply filters on the fly)
Categories
(MailNews Core :: Filters, enhancement, P2)
MailNews Core
Filters
Tracking
(Not tracked)
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla1.2alpha
People
(Reporter: sspitzer, Assigned: Bienvenu)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: helpwanted, Whiteboard: [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0])
Attachments
(2 files, 2 obsolete files)
2.88 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
30.81 KB,
patch
|
naving
:
review+
sspitzer
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Perhaps Based on selection?
Reporter | ||
Updated•25 years ago
|
Summary: [HELP WANTED] Filter after the fact (run filters on mail you've already received) → Filter after the fact (run filters on mail you've already received)
Whiteboard: HELP WANTED
Reporter | ||
Updated•25 years ago
|
Summary: Filter after the fact (run filters on mail you've already received) → [HELP WANTED] Filter after the fact (run filters on mail you've already received)
Target Milestone: M15
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•25 years ago
|
||
marking m15.
Comment 2•25 years ago
|
||
A superset of this is bug 9417. Marking dependency, mark as dupe if you want.
Comment 4•25 years ago
|
||
Would anyone mind if I put HELP WANTED on 9417?
Comment 5•25 years ago
|
||
Bulk-resolving requests for enhancement as "later" to get them off the Seamonkey bug tracking radar. Even though these bugs are not "open" in bugzilla, we welcome fixes and improvements in these areas at any time. Mail/news RFEs continue to be tracked on http://www.mozilla.org/mailnews/jobs.html
Comment 6•25 years ago
|
||
Reopen mail/news HELP WANTED bugs and reassign to nobody@mozilla.org
Updated•25 years ago
|
Keywords: helpwanted
Updated•25 years ago
|
Summary: [HELP WANTED] Filter after the fact (run filters on mail you've already received) → Filter after the fact (run filters on mail you've already received)
Whiteboard: HELP WANTED
Updated•25 years ago
|
Target Milestone: M15
Updated•24 years ago
|
Keywords: mozilla1.2
Comment 10•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 84366 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 11•23 years ago
|
||
I believe this should be naving's. (We talked about it the other day.) Reassign.
Comment 12•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 65136 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 13•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 87855 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 14•23 years ago
|
||
fixing summary to catch more cases in queries.
Summary: Filter after the fact (run filters on mail you've already received) → Filter after the fact (run filters on mail you've already received - apply filters on the fly)
Comment 15•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 88210 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 16•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 45609 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 17•23 years ago
|
||
If anyone is not working on this then I will tackle it. I want to be able to set a filter up that will automatically move my mail to subfolders of sent-mail that are dated each month so I will have: + sent-mail sent-mail-jan-2001 sent-mail-feb-2001 sent-mail-mar-2001 and so on and so forth. I figure I will have to implement filter after the fact for this as well as extend the current filter creation GUI to allow for creating new folders. Also it would be nice if the folders were in date order rather than alpha order in the UI as they are now. Not sure how we could do that in a general way though.
Comment 18•23 years ago
|
||
Simple to order folders by date: Name them "Sent-Mail-2001-01, ..-2001-02, etc. A more powerful filtering mechanism would allow a script to run on each message so you could grab the date and synthesize the folder name!
Comment 19•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 90979 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 20•23 years ago
|
||
True but that is rather inflexible... A user might not like to have them in this order. They may like September-2001 or Sept-2001 and it would be nice if it handled it. Your suggestion is probably what I will use though...
Comment 21•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 91690 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 22•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 94097 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 23•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 98986 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 24•23 years ago
|
||
Targetting this for 0.9.6, may get to it earlier. There are some other things that need to be done before we can do this one.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla0.9.6
Comment 25•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 100711 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 26•23 years ago
|
||
I really need this -- I just switched to Mozilla, so I have 7000 e-mails in my INBOX that I would like to filter! :-)
Whiteboard: [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0]
Comment 27•23 years ago
|
||
ian - there's a hacky workaround to achieve the affect - I've used it once or twice: - go to your INBOX, select all, and mark them all unread. - quit mozilla - go into the IMAP mail folder for that server, and delete INBOX.msf and (if it's there) INBOX. - start up mozilla and log back in. it will think your inbox was previously empty, and that you just recieved 7000 email...
Comment 28•23 years ago
|
||
Re: Hackey work-around from alecf@netscape.com - That isn't much help if one isn't using IMAP, or if the messages were already deleted from the server.
Comment 29•23 years ago
|
||
oops, I should have mentioned that the hack was IMAP only.. it wasn't intended as a replacement, just as a hack in case someone wanted to do this TODAY instead of waiting for this bug to be fixed :)
Comment 30•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 104246 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 32•23 years ago
|
||
Are we going to allow filter after the fact to work on inbox or on all folders under that account. It makes sense to do only for inbox. jglick, do we have a spec for this feature.
Comment 33•23 years ago
|
||
I think it makes a lot of sense for it to run on folders other than the inbox.. I would use that feature all the time if I could. For instance, I have a subfolder "Outside" which contains all non-netscape.com mail. I'd sure love to re-filter that mail into subfolders...
Comment 34•23 years ago
|
||
Unless there's a major technical hurdle (I can't think of one), it may as well be generic enough to run on any folder ... but yes, if it's just done for Inbox that will be sufficient for 90% of people I think.
Comment 35•23 years ago
|
||
I definitely think, if as jkeiser says, it's not too much of a problem, that this should be doable on any/all folders of an account.
Comment 36•23 years ago
|
||
It logical to allow filtering of any *selected* folder. why shouldn't you do that for other if you can for inbox? To avoid painful accidents I'd maybe vote for having a warning or confirmation box before processing folders other than inbox.
Comment 37•23 years ago
|
||
If it could filter also newsgroup folders that would solve another ancient bug 17483.
Comment 38•23 years ago
|
||
Filter spec is here: http://www.mozilla.org/mailnews/specs/filters/#Msg Filters D It was never discussed whether filter after the fact should include subfolders or not (cause we never got close enough to having it working?). Maybe the ui needs to be changed to allow the user to select what folder(s) they want the filter run on?
Comment 39•23 years ago
|
||
Updated•23 years ago
|
Attachment #54316 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•23 years ago
|
Attachment #54316 -
Attachment is obsolete: false
Attachment #54316 -
Attachment mime type: text/plain → text/html
Comment 40•23 years ago
|
||
david/seth, what do you think about design doc ?
Comment 41•23 years ago
|
||
Personally, I'd like to see this feature as a menu item in the "Message" menu. It should filter all the currently selected messages.
Comment 42•23 years ago
|
||
Responding to the Design Doc: * "enabled filters" --> "selected filter(s)" I don't know about anyone else but I have a pretty big list to run down twiddling the enabled flag. * Modal progress indicator could be per-folder similar to the way some install programs show a "per-disk" progress. * I'm not sure why you need do anything special to accomodate arbitrary headers -- the list of headers /in the query/ are not at all unknown. There's so much variation in headers already I don't imagine there's any difficulty if messages don't have an instance of the header in question. I don't know IMAP but how is that done now? This looks to me identical to running a search query - maybe allowing a more complex search or more complex actions.
Comment 43•23 years ago
|
||
I think we need to rethink the UI. I don't think that going to the filters dialog and doing this action should run this filter on every single folder in an account. Here are some suggestions (and they might have already been suggested, I've just glanced through this bug). 1. If you do this through the filter dialog it just runs it on the Inbox in that account. 2. We add a menu item that lets you do this on the currently selected folder. The menu item would either bring up some new UI that would let you choose the filter/folder (with current folder pre-selected), or the menu item would be a menu with a list of filters for that account. Some other possibilities that I'd like to throw out: 1. Take it out of the filter dialog completely and just let it be executed from a menu. 2. If we leave it in the filter dialog, either let it bring up some UI that lets you select the folder(s) the user wants to do this on or have some UI in the filter dialogs that lets you choose the folder(s) the user wants to do this too.
Updated•23 years ago
|
Comment 44•23 years ago
|
||
Why not just do it similar to how Outlook Express does it? Have a button in the filter area that says Apply Now... You click on Apply Now, another UI comes up, you select the rule you want to apply, click the browse button to select the folder to apply it to (defaulting to Inbox), and click Apply Now. We could also have the Select All and Select None buttons so that you can apply all your rules in one go if you so wished. It even shows a description of what the rule does in a small window (basically just shows the rule itself). There is also an include subfolders checkbox in case the chosen folder has subfolders. In any case, let's not make it like GroupWise 5.5. I don't know if GroupWise 6 is any different, but in 5.5 you have to select all the messages you want the rule to apply to before you run the rule against existing messages.
Comment 45•23 years ago
|
||
I like the idea of a menu which displays the filter list for a folder: Run filter on this folder > All filters Filter 1 Filter 2 etc of course the wording would need to be a bit more terse :)
Comment 46•23 years ago
|
||
I'd expect this feature to be that all filters be run on a selected folder, like with new mail just that you can choose which folder(s). Do we really need UI to choose which filter to run too?
Comment 47•23 years ago
|
||
I always assumed I'd have the ability to pick which filter I wanted to run. I think we should have an option for all, but I think we should be able to choose an individual filter as wel..
Comment 48•23 years ago
|
||
I don't think a menu item for each filter is a good UI, a dialog with a list of filters could be better. The dialog could pre-select the filter you used last, so that it would be easy to re-run a filter, e.g. after jumping into another folder. (The Message|Move Message and Message|Copy Message menus have the same problem and are really annoying.) One thing I'd like to be considered is the relation between filters and message searching. Manually run filters are essentially stored searches with attached actions. Maybe the UI could be unified, e.g. have "Store as filter" in the search dialog etc.
Updated•23 years ago
|
Target Milestone: mozilla0.9.6 → mozilla0.9.7
Updated•23 years ago
|
Target Milestone: mozilla0.9.7 → mozilla1.0
Comment 49•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 114608 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•23 years ago
|
Comment 50•23 years ago
|
||
I'm sure you hear this all the time, but I really don't understand why it takes so long to implement this feature. IMO this is really a basic function which is essential for a 1.0 release and although I'm no programmer I can't see why this should be so difficult to implement. Please reconsider the target milestone. Sorry for the rant. simi
Comment 51•23 years ago
|
||
The milestone isn't going to be reconsidered as long as Navin owns the bug. You are right, it wouldn't take very long to implement this feature. It's the fact that there are about 3600 other mail bugs/features that prevent this from getting implemented.
Comment 52•23 years ago
|
||
why not just open the mailfolder, and send each mail out via a loopback interface back to myself to fire the mail filter rules? That should be easiest to get the effects early. Talk about efficiency later...
Updated•23 years ago
|
Severity: normal → enhancement
Whiteboard: [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0] → [Hixie-P0]
Comment 53•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 122587 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 54•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 123502 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•23 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [Hixie-P0] → [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0]
Comment 55•23 years ago
|
||
I feel that the default behavior should be apply all filters to the selected folder(s) and any subfolders. This would suffice for all of my needs. I have been extremely impressed by the way that KMail handles this. This would allow everything to be re-processed if one selected the mail server, but usually only the inbox would be selected. KMail only processes selected messages, and while almost always sufficient it fails if one wants to process a hierarchy of folders. Perhaps there should be a switch to turn off recursive descent, though I can only think of twice when I would have used such an option. If one were to get fancier than that, then I would be more in favor of allowing regular expressions into the recognitions semantics than most of the other obvious options. And some facility for filtering by character set family. Or language, but that seems more difficult, and it would generally suffice to reject messages with several non-western european letters in a row. I don't read any language written in Cyrillic or Hiragana or .... (I recognize that this isn't actually a part of the same project, but it appears closely related, and seems [to me] more worthy of the effort than complex dialogs, or rebuilding the whole UI. Also a lot simpler.)
Comment 56•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 136565 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 57•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 137908 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 58•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 139794 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 59•22 years ago
|
||
This bug seems to be about both the front end and the backend for refiltering messages. IMO the backend should be a function that will apply a list of filters to a mail folder. The frontend should be responsible to interact with the user to find out which filters to apply, and to which folders and invoke the backend as often as necessary to process all folders. A first start for the frontend that would be trivial to implement is to add a button "Run now" to the "tools"->"message filters" dialog that would simply run all enabled filters on the *currently viewed list of messages*. I think the expected run now behaviour would be to only run the filters on those messages that are displayed in the same window. Additional front ends for filtering folders recursively by right clicking on them etc. could be added later.
Comment 60•22 years ago
|
||
To sum up, the current concensus seems to be: * Have a button in the filter list dialog, clicking that will bring up another dialog. * The new dialog will have options like which folders to process, and which filters (one specific or all) to use. * Applying the filter(s) on the specified folder(s) will pop up a progress dialog, similar to the one in compose, where you will be able to track the progress of the filtering. There are lots of cool additions we could make, but let's file new bugs for those features, so we don't block the progress of the basic implementation. BTW, when implementing this, we need to make sure we don't filter the same messages multiple times; e.g., moving a message from folder A to folder B, and then filtering the messsages in folder B would re-filter the moved message.
Comment 61•22 years ago
|
||
Actually, you could just put a progressbar on the options dialog, instead of creating a new one, and use that when the filtering starts.
Comment 62•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 145630 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 63•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 146031 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 64•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 147162 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 65•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 147675 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 66•22 years ago
|
||
What about "remove messages put to this box more that X month ago" to trash? Approximately like in KMail (there count received date - not put-into-theis-box date).
Comment 67•22 years ago
|
||
One reason I want to 'filter after the fact' is that sometimes I read mail in some other IMAP client. Then I go back to Netscape, and my mail is all un-categorized.
Comment 68•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 152200 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 69•22 years ago
|
||
I'm really confused/frustrated here. I use IMAP and mail doesn't magically "already exist/after the fact" in my folders. folderXYZ is functionally exactly the same as INBOX. Why should they be processed any differently? In other words, I use procmail to sort and deliver my mail to ~30 mailboxes. I don't use Mozilla to sort anything. I have one filter rule: If X-Bmilter contains "=True", then label as SPAM. Most people I talk to appear to only be aware of how POP3 works and are really unfamiliar with IMAP and the ability to have more than one mailbox on the server. IMAP lets you have your inbox plus any number of mailboxes...and even lets you use public shared mailboxes. All of these mailboxes are "new mail" that has to be downloaded. Why aren't filters applied to these mailboxes when mail is fetched? Put at another angle, I don't want to have to a) fetch mail, b) open a menu for each mailbox folder, c) run selected filters. That's very tedious and time consuming. I want to be able to a) define a list of filters b) on each mailbox folder, be able to pick which filters I want applied to that mailbox, normally [x] All Discussion?
Comment 70•22 years ago
|
||
don't be frustrated. what you're talking about is a feature above and beyond the scope of THIS bug. nobody could even begin to implement the feature you describe without first implementing this one. file a new bug, and make it dependent on this one.
Comment 71•22 years ago
|
||
I had already made 152200 and it was duped against this bug. I'm reopening it.
Comment 72•22 years ago
|
||
Re: comment 70 : what he is suggesting is not a duplicate of this bug. He wants 1) To be able to filter other mailboxes, not just Inbox. 2) To be able to specify which filters apply to which mailboxes He didn't ask about: 3) Apply such filters manually or automatically Clearly only 3) depends on this bug
Comment 73•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 154002 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 74•22 years ago
|
||
What I feel would be best for filters: - filters should be applicable on the two "flows" of email, which are "into account" (therefore when mail comes into the main inbox) and "out of account" (ie when being sent). - in addition to that, the user should be able to manually apply (or reapply) filters on any folder (including inbox, sent,...: this is useful, amongst others, if you read occasionally your mail with another mail client, which does not know about your filters and therefore moves all your incoming mail into the inbox without filtering)
Comment 75•22 years ago
|
||
Please, this bug is not a general bugs where you can ask for new features. File new bugs for new features. This bug *only* tracks the ground work that needs to be done to allow to run filters on an arbitrary folder per comment 60. Do not comment here - file new bugs.
Comment 76•22 years ago
|
||
Just an FYI for you Vincent, (comment 74) there are only two "flows" of email for pop3 accounts. imap can have numerous mailboxes. Please read over bug 115200 that was referenced in comment 68 through comment 72.
Comment 77•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 159093 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 78•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 163446 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 79•22 years ago
|
||
taking; I've got this mostly coded up.
Assignee: naving → bienvenu
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Comment 80•22 years ago
|
||
Cool :) Go Bienvenu!
Assignee | ||
Comment 81•22 years ago
|
||
this is what I have so far - it's not ready to checkin, but it shows the basic approach. I chose the Search approach (as opposed to iterating over the msg hdrs applying the filters in turn) because, now that, thx to Navin, we have custom imap headers, we can't just use the hdrs stored in the db, and if we had to download the extra headers from the server anyway, we might as well just do the search on the server. This approach allows the code to be completely generic - we don't care if the filters are on imap, local or news folders, because search handles all of those, and the filter action application is handled by nsIMsgFolder interfaces. By getting all the search results back before applying the filter , we can apply the action all at once. And Search has the nice attribute of already being asynchronous so it doesn't lock up the UI. The backend code supports applying an arbitrary list of filters to an arbitrary list of folders. I have a lot of testing to do, and I need to improve the error handling code - we might want to prompt the user if filter execution fails to see if they want to continue or not, for example. I also need to incorporate the filter logging stuff that Seth has been working on.
Comment 82•22 years ago
|
||
Call me crazy, but I sometimes use search from an offline state - does that mean that I can apply filters while offline as well? That would be very cool..
Assignee | ||
Comment 83•22 years ago
|
||
yes, forgot to mention that, it should just work while offline because Search detects when you're offline (except that custom headers won't work because we won't have them). Another detail about the interface - I only apply the enabled filters, so if the UI allows the user to select disabled filters to run, when the UI code copies the filters to a new list, it needs to enable them.
Comment 84•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 167922 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 85•22 years ago
|
||
will this make it into 1.2?
Assignee | ||
Comment 86•22 years ago
|
||
it should make the 1.2 beta and then 1.2 - it won't make the 1.2 alpha, obviously.
Assignee | ||
Comment 87•22 years ago
|
||
This patch is ready for review, I believe. I tested the following things: IMAP filters, local filters, filter logging, single filter execution, multiple filter execution (can't test execution on multiple folders yet since there's no UI for it). I've verified that if the local .msf file is missing or out of date, we'll reparse the mailbox and then apply the filters. I've also verified that the nsMsgFilterAfterTheFact object does get released when done, and that in the cae of the server being down, an error message is displayed; then ask the user if they want to continue filter execution or not. There are a couple issues outstanding - the PAB presence filter stuff Scott is landing, and handling of the stop button, but I need Seth to do the UI for that first and it's pretty useful as is. Navin, can you review? Thx!
Comment 88•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 98938 [details] [diff] [review] proposed fix why are we using temp filter list ? why not just iterate over enabled filters in the original filterList. Also before doing filter move you might want to check for bogus folders
Comment 89•22 years ago
|
||
missing new line at end of filter.properties
Assignee | ||
Comment 90•22 years ago
|
||
Navin, I initially implemented it the way you suggest, but ran into the problem that if the user selects disabled filters in the filter dialog to apply, we'd need to clone the filters in order to enable them and run them. Cloning filters would be painful if you did a deep clone because of all the member variables in the filter and rule, so it was easier to do it the way I ended up rewriting it. It would be hard to get an invalid folder from the filter picker or the folder pane but I can try to verify it - check for null parent, you think?
Assignee | ||
Comment 91•22 years ago
|
||
oh, sorry, the move target - yeah, I can try to verify that.
Assignee | ||
Comment 92•22 years ago
|
||
patch to address Navin's comments (and fix menu item text for apply filter after the fact).
Attachment #98468 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #98938 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 93•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 98977 [details] [diff] [review] proposed fix r=naving looks good. I saw UI is already in but looks like it is not hooked upto select which filters I want to run.
Attachment #98977 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 94•22 years ago
|
||
right, Seth checked in the UI w/o it being hooked up, so that clicking the run button did nothing.
Comment 95•22 years ago
|
||
No, I meant if I want to apply 1st, 3rd and 5th filter out of 6 filters I have. Your code does not handle that. It adds all enabled filters to the temp filter list.
Reporter | ||
Comment 96•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 98977 [details] [diff] [review] proposed fix sr=sspitzer laurel is going to be so happy! how many years have we wanted this?
Attachment #98977 -
Flags: superreview+
Assignee | ||
Comment 97•22 years ago
|
||
it shouldn't - I thought it was just iterating over the filters in the selection. It looks like to me it's just going over the selection.
Assignee | ||
Comment 98•22 years ago
|
||
in FilterListDialog.js, this code iterates over the selected filters in the filter list (Seth actually wrote this, so I can't take any credit for it) var sel = gFilterTree.view.selection; for (var i = 0; i < sel.getRangeCount(); i++) { var start = {}, end = {}; sel.getRangeAt(i, start, end); for (var j = start.value; j <= end.value; j++) { var curFilter = getFilter(j); if (curFilter) { filterList.insertFilterAt(start.value - j, curFilter); } } }
Comment 99•22 years ago
|
||
It is ok I saw the part of the patch for mailWindowOverlay.js. It is right you have no way of selecting filters here. Index: base/resources/content/mailWindowOverlay.js =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla/mailnews/base/resources/content/mailWindowOverlay.js,v retrieving revision 1.131 diff -u -w -r1.131 mailWindowOverlay.js --- base/resources/content/mailWindowOverlay.js 14 Aug 2002 22:12:13 -0000 1.131 +++ base/resources/content/mailWindowOverlay.js 12 Sep 2002 23:44:01 -0000 @@ -1216,6 +1216,39 @@ } } +function MsgApplyFilters() +{ + var filterService = Components.classes["@mozilla.org/messenger/services/filters;1"].getService(Components.interfaces.nsIMsgFilterService); + + var preselectedFolder = GetFirstSelectedMsgFolder(); + var selectedFolders = Components.classes["@mozilla.org/supports-array;1"].createInstance(Components.interfaces.nsISupportsArray); + selectedFolders.AppendElement(preselectedFolder); + + var curFilterList = preselectedFolder.getFilterList(msgWindow); + // create a new filter list and copy over the enabled filters to it. + // We do this instead of having the filter after the fact code ignore + // disabled filters because the Filter Dialog filter after the fact + // code would have to clone filters to allow disabled filters to run, + // and we don't support cloning filters currently. + var tempFilterList = filterService.getTempFilterList(preselectedFolder); + var numFilters = curFilterList.filterCount; + // make sure the temp filter list uses the same log stream + tempFilterList.logStream = curFilterList.logStream; + tempFilterList.loggingEnabled = curFilterList.loggingEnabled; + var i = 0; + var newFilterIndex = 0; + for (; i < numFilters; i++) + { + var curFilter = curFilterList.getFilterAt(i); + if (curFilter.enabled) + { + tempFilterList.insertFilterAt(newFilterIndex, curFilter); + newFilterIndex++; + } + } + filterService.applyFiltersToFolders(tempFilterList, selectedFolders, msgWindow); +}
Assignee | ||
Comment 100•22 years ago
|
||
fix checked in. Follow up issues will be handled by new bugs.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 101•22 years ago
|
||
bienvenu wrote:
> fix checked in. Follow up issues will be handled by new bugs.
What's the bugid for the "nebiros"-bustage on tinderbox ?
Assignee | ||
Comment 102•22 years ago
|
||
I believe it's been fixed already by mkapply.
Comment 103•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 171457 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 104•22 years ago
|
||
marking verified using current trunk builds... implementation in, bugs found will be logged separately.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Updated•20 years ago
|
Product: MailNews → Core
Updated•16 years ago
|
Product: Core → MailNews Core
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•