42.67 KB, patch
|Details | Diff | Splinter Review|
4.84 KB, patch
|Details | Diff | Splinter Review|
5.09 KB, patch
|Details | Diff | Splinter Review|
1.12 KB, text/html
557 bytes, text/html
705 bytes, patch
|Details | Diff | Splinter Review|
20 years ago
Summary: [HELP WANTED] new filter action: Auto reply and forward. → [HELP WANTED] new filter action: Auto reply and forward.
Whiteboard: HELP WANTED
Target Milestone: M15
*** Bug 10886 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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
Reopen mail/news HELP WANTED bugs and reassign to email@example.com
Summary: [HELP WANTED] new filter action: Auto reply and forward. → new filter action: Auto reply and forward.
Whiteboard: HELP WANTED
Target Milestone: M15
*** Bug 24652 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 100439 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Here is simplest part - filter backend. Need UI part and forward/reply implementation. :-) I understand, how to forward msg as attachment w/o UI, but not quite understand how to forward inline or reply w/o UI Another open issue - reply text...
*** Bug 141523 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 150623 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 154813 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
A variant on forwarding that I'd like to see as well: forward to pager. The key here is that it would filter out non-content headers, sending just the subject and the first couple hundred characters of the message.
agreed, this would be an option for reading your mails via handheld or cellphone
Taking; I will be working on this when I'm back from vacation.
Assignee: nobody → bienvenu
I just wanted to add a new feature request, but already exists. Yesterday I installed N7 on one computer and the owner will continuing using Outlook Express coz of this feature lack. It uses this Forward method forwarding e-mails to his PDA when he's out of the office. So, it is on user's wishlist. Tnx. PS Sorry for the spam.
Eugene, Do you mean the user always keeps his desktop running while he is out of office? I suggest this should be a server side feature.
Yes, the desctop is always running. It's a small company without own server.
*** Bug 151887 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
A forward feature would be very nice, I miss it now. I think the user should specify several forward addresses and also decide whether the message that was forwarded is kept in Mail also or it gets deleted ('moved' to the forward address).
Mostly copying from bug 61635 comment 13: Note that as we now have filtering "after the fact" (Tools->Run Filters on Selected Folder), this would be the first filter action that, when run multiple times, always does something, if you know what I mean. IOW, I suggest that there should be some way to ensure that the message doesn't get forwarded if it already has been forwarded to the same address (or with the same filter, or at all) before.
*** Bug 200443 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 194786 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Since 194786 has been duped against this, we should note that that RFE was also for a filter action that allows automatic bouncing (forward with original sender and headers intact) of messages (See bug 12916 for the RFE for the bounce function itself). Changing desc.accordingly to simplify search. IMO, this bug are really three bugs (reply, forward, bounce) though.
Summary: new filter action: Auto reply and forward. → new filter actions: Auto reply, forward, bounce
I think an automatic answer function for e-mails ("vacation mode") is an important feature for the email client (see Bug 200443). It must be easy to enable/ disable in an option tab and should refer to a default text/email that should be sent. There should be a dialog to choose which emails should be answered automatically, e.g.: - all where the sender is in the adress book, - a list of emails from the adress book, - all with a certain domain name, - except all with a certain domain name and how often it should be sent (e.g. once per day at a certain time, or once per sender email adress) to ensure that there is not a "auto reply loop" between two email clients.
Is this bug related with #11769? It seems that #11769 is a part of this one -- or this one is summarizing three bugs as mentioned above.
re #23 - no please read the bug descriptions. bug 11769 is asking for a mail function to bounce a message back to the sender. bug 12916 is asking for a mail function fo bounce/redirect and forward to a new recipient. This bug is asking to be able to reply, forward, or bounce/redirect (but not bounce back) as a *filter action* -> shouldn't this therefore be component "Filters" to avoid confusion?
*** Bug 228145 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 229770 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 232666 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This feature would be fine. I have some mailgroups that are being received in my local mailbox, but at this time I have lots of messages + 20000, this is turning to slower to read. Now I created a postfix rule to block this mails and leave in a separete file on my server, but I need to delete all mail messages that are in my mozilla, so I thought that if I create a rule that auto-forward that mails to myself, the postfix will get this mails and after I can delete it from mozilla.
*** Bug 238118 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Has there been any movement regarding a rule that will forward messages on to other users?
*** Bug 246204 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 247309 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 247360 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please also take care of the "Precedence:" field when sending Auto-Replies. Would be great if I could at least send a message to all those whose messages have been filtered straight to trash :-).
Does anyone know of a good mail program with this feature and with tech staff that actually do more than post 20 or 30 messages saying this is a duplicate bug? Or that actually does something to RESOLVE the bug?
@ Ronnie Wexer: Please man, show a little respect for the work these people do. There are thousands of people like you waiting for a requested feature to be implemented, so patience is your only choice. I think an apology would be appropriate.
*** Bug 252076 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 260711 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
assuming that we have mailnews extension for mails redirecting (http://mailredirect.mozdev.org), i'm wondering how bug #11034 should be fixed. should we have 'const Redirect=11' line in nsMsgFilterCore.idl and appropriate C++ code, or maybe handle it in some more general way. besides, how to associate function within mailredirect extension with filteraction?
*** Bug 278724 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
The answer seems to be 1) implement this on the server side or 2) switch back to Outlook Express. I appreciate all the hard work that goes into a project like this, but I don't appreciate the technical only response (or lack of any response) that is given. Even giving a Target Date of “Future” would have been a nice response. My mother and several other members of my family and friends switched to Thunderbird. They do not have a server; heck, they don't even know what a server is. All they know is that “at work I can send back an email that I’m on vacation”. Thunderbird is definitely not ready for home use. Is it planned to be in the future?
I'd like to do this - it's roughly fifth on my list of highly requested feature/bug fixes, if that helps.
*** Bug 261891 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 262593 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 238947 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
How are we progressing on this one???? Dave...
I'm still busy with bug 2920 - this is the next enhancement on my list, but I have some bugs to fix first.
I've implemented basic forwarding (forwards the incoming message as attachment or inline, based on your default forwarding setting). I'm working on reply with template, where you'll pick a message from the templates folder as the message to reply with - you'll pick from a list of message subjects to use as the reply. To deal with multiple template messages with the same subject, I'll probably add the date field, or maybe use the to: field (which is not meaningful for templates used as replies).
I suggest also allowing a "forward quoted" option, equivalent to the sequence of commands: (Go to received message) ^U (view source) ^A (select all) ^C (copy) ^W (close the source window) ^L (forward) (enter forwarding address) Tab twice (go to message body) Ctrl/Shift/End (highlight entire body) Ctrl/Shift/V (replace it with the source, quoted with "> " on each line) Send This is what I have to do, over and over again, to report ebay/paypal scams by forwarding them to firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com. (They need all of the original headers but don't accept attachments.) The same method will also be useful for subscribers to abuse.net and SpamCop to use in sending spam complaints. (For those it would also be helpful to be able to set the forwarding address to some function of the original sender address. For example, to complain about a spam sent from "firstname.lastname@example.org" via abuse.net, one would send the complaint to "email@example.com".) Re. comment #18 - It's easy enough to implement a "forward only once" rule without any additional feature to support it, simply by including in the filter rule a second action that makes the message no longer fit the criteria for the rule, such as changing its priority, moving it to another folder, or marking it as junk.
This gets the basics of the filter front end and back end working, for forward and reply with template filter actions. Reply with template lets you pick a message from the filter account's templates folder, and the reply is sent with the body of the template message, and with the subject of the template message, plus (was: <subject of replied-to message>). There are a number of remaining issues: 1. Make IMAP request reply-to header when downloading headers, so reply filter will send reply to reply-to header of message (this should work for pop with the current patch) 2. If the current filter, or (yuck!) a subsequent filter, moves/deletes the message to be replied/forwarded, it could break the reply/forward filter, since reply/forward are asynchronous actions. 3. We use the message-id and subject of a template message to uniquely identify it, in msgFilterRules.dat. I believe editing a template changes the message-id, which will break the filter. 4. I'm not sure how we'll deal with cycles in filter replies, if the person replied to also has an auto-responder. We could allow the user to specify a limit on how often a reply-to is to be sent to a particular user (which I think would require storing this info in the address book). We could try to use the references header to make sure a message wasn't a reply to our own auto-response, but that would require that the other auto-responder fills in the reference header, which might not be true (this patch doesn't do that yet) 5. We'd like to add reply with template to the UI - it's probably mostly orthogonal to this work, since reply with template will bring up the compose window, and the filter action replies silently.
Attachment #62841 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 179171 [details] [diff] [review] work in progress wrong patch.
Attachment #179171 - Attachment is obsolete: true
this gets the basic reply+forward filter actions working.
Attachment #179723 - Flags: superreview?(mscott)
(In reply to comment #52) > Created an attachment (id=179723)  > proposed fix for basic functionality > > this gets the basic reply+forward filter actions working. What can a neophyte do with this attachment... In other words how do I implement? Rick
you'd need to pull your own tree from cvs, and apply this patch, and build - a pretty big challenge for a neophyte :-) At some point, this will get checked into the trunk and you can try a trunk build.
Comment on attachment 179723 [details] [diff] [review] proposed fix for basic functionality some dump statements in PopulateTemplateMenu I have (probably false) concerns about the memory model with the template reply helper class. It has a strong ref on a msg window and an incoming server. I assume the url owns that. Does the msg window have a reference to the url at all? I don't think it does. A quick sanity check would be good here to make sure the window isn't getting leaked. How about "Choose a template to reply with" instead of please? We aren't polite around here :)
Attachment #179723 - Flags: superreview?(mscott) → superreview+
Comment on attachment 179723 [details] [diff] [review] proposed fix for basic functionality a=shaver
Attachment #179723 - Flags: approval-aviary1.1a2? → approval-aviary1.1a2+
"At some point, this will get checked into the trunk and you can try a trunk build." Has a trunk build been created? Please advise at your earliest convenience. RickAce
> Has a trunk build been created? Yes, reply+forward is available in nightly builds 20050602 and forwards. http://www.mozilla.org/developer/#builds
David, is adding "Transfer(or redirect)" option to "automatic forwarding" difficult? My provider has "Mail Transfer Service", which is sending copy of arrived mail to other my mail address(es), by utilizing "Resent-From" and "Resent-To" headers. This is similar mechanism to "mailredirect" extention mentioned by comment #39 From Pawel Krzesniak. I think this "Transfer/Re-direct with Resent-From/To" style is much simpler than "forward with template", and is better for user in some cases than "Forward as inline or attachment" style when "automatic forwarding by filter". Please note also that "redirect loop" can be easily avoided by "Resent-From:" header. Biggest problem is, I think, this method can not be used if provider rejects "From:" mail address which is different from provider's one based on provider's spam policy. (A. Headers NOT changed from original on transfer) Return-Path: From: Date: Subject: To: Message-ID: (Recieved: headers in original mail are also sent.) (B. Headers Added on transfer) Resent-From: Resent-Date: Resent-To: Resent-Message-ID: By the way, please be carefull when open "automatic forward as attachment" feature to public, because Bug 203570 and Bug 204350 are still alive as you know.
> is adding "Transfer(or redirect)" option to "automatic forwarding" difficult? Probably not too difficult - I think the code would be similar to the reply with template code. It would bring up the current message in a hidden compose window, as if we did edit | message as new, add the Resent headers, and send the message.
Is it possible to ally this filter on IMAP subfolder? If the IMAP server filters the mail?
no, we can't automatically associate any filters with imap folders other than the inbox. Worse, I forgot to make this work when filters are run after the fact.
Comment on attachment 185824 [details] [diff] [review] add support for after the fact filtering, and imap reply why did you add DOM to base\search\src\Makefile.in? I didn't see anything that was using it. Ditto for uriloader
Attachment #185824 - Flags: superreview?(mscott) → superreview+
nsIMsgComposeService.h pulls in nsIMsgCompose.h which pulls in nsIMsgProgress.h, which pulls in domstubs.h - I forget what required uriloader, but I suspect it was the same thing. I'll double check that it's required.
Similarly, nsIMsgProgress inherits from nsIWebProgressListener, which requires uriloader (see comment #64)
this fixes some of the compose idl include structure, so that folks who include "nsIMsgCompose.h" and friends won't require uriloader or dom.
Attachment #185824 - Flags: approval-aviary1.1a2? → approval-aviary1.1a2+
Attachment #185886 - Flags: superreview?(mscott) → superreview+
(In reply to comment #50) > 4. I'm not sure how we'll deal with cycles in filter replies, The standardised method to do to that is to use the Precedence header. Can you *make sure* to implement the auto-reply option so that it takes into account the Precedence header, and does not auto-reply to bulk, junk and list marked mail ? Also, it should probably insert a Precedence bulk header inside the mail it sends. Maybe we need a separate bug for that ?
yes, please file a new bug for that. Is there any rfc or proposed rfc that talks about the precedence header? Do other e-mail programs that send bounce messages actually put in a precendence: bulk header? I didn't see it in the ones I tried.
I was also looking for an RFC, but there is none. I found some perhaps useful information (in german) at http://forum.domainfactory.de/forum/showpost.php?s=479f1be0647c16fe1029386f35a5285b&p=169178&postcount=7
*** Bug 300502 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I'm really anxious to see the "Reply with Template" filter action working correctly. 1. Even though David in comment #50 mentioned "reply filter will send reply to reply-to header of message (this should work for pop with the current patch)", as of Alpha 2 (2005-07-12-09), it definitely is *not* using the reply-to header for pop. Unless the "current patch" he mentions isn't actually in Alpha 2. 2. How much of the "template" is actually used? I know the body and the subject are sent along in the reply. However, I set a "reply-to" in the template and it was ignored. Of course, maybe the "reply-to" in the template is interfering with the "reply-to" in the original message! (Just a thought). 3. If the template has an email address and a website address (URL minus "http://" prefix) in the body, the Reply with Template seems to mangle the sent message. I've turned off the "Compose message in HTML format" option so the template is saved in plain text to test whether that prevents the mangling. However, doing this may have caused the Reply with Template to generate an SMTP error. (I can send messages manually.) Even turning that option back on doesn't fix the problem. I'll try deleting the profile to see if that fixes anything.
As an after thought, a "Reply-To" header in the template would interfere with the entire Reply with Template unless the filter action could add the "Reply-To" header from the template after the message was composed to the correct "Reply-To". At least Pegasus was unable to process them correctly.
Re: comment #72 I recreated the profile for problem 3. It didn't help. I've now upgraded to "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b3) Gecko/20050714 Thunderbird/1.0+ ID:2005071407". This didn't help. I discovered that the filter action will send the reply (with the other 2 problems) only as long as the Template is in HTML format. If I uncheck "Compose message in HTML format", then it sends the HTML formatted template as plain text (you see all the HTML). The only time the filter action will not send the reply (it gets an SMTP error) is if the Template is in plain text format. Then it doesn't matter whether "Compose message in HTML format" is checked or unchecked. It still gets the SMTP error. In summary, 1. HTML Template, "Compose message in HTML format" checked, Sends mangled HTML email. 2. HTML Template, "Compose message in HTML format" unchecked, Sends mangled HTML as plain text. 3. Plain text Template, "Compose message in HTML format" checked, Gets SMTP error. 4. Plain text Template, "Compose message in HTML format" unchecked, Gets SMTP error. If someone will tell me how to turn on a log of what Thunderbird is trying to send, I can post that.
The ability to add an optional short canned comment to the message being forwarded would be a very good addition. The basic forward filter in the current beta seems to be working well already; the canned comment would be icing on the cake.
(In reply to comment #74) > Re: comment #72 > > > In summary, > 1. HTML Template, "Compose message in HTML format" checked, Sends mangled HTML > email. Yes, I am seeing this also in TB version 1.0+ (20050719) with an html template. Testcases will follow of the original html template, and the sent html.
Joe, can you turn that into a new bug, file it on David, cc me and put your test cases there?
(In reply to comment #79) > Joe, can you turn that into a new bug, file it on David, cc me and put your test > cases there? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=302123 filed. Trouble getting David's mail.
Attachment #191131 - Flags: superreview?(mscott) → superreview+
Attachment #191131 - Flags: approval1.8b4? → approval1.8b4+
reply-to hdr handling for pop3 reply with template filters fix checked in.
Ok, David... I'm confused! I saw the patch "go in" (it was listed as "patched but not fixed" on the 2005080305 nightly in http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=301024! However, it still doesn't work. When a patch is checked in like this, when does it actually become part of the product?
what doesn't work? "it" is a bit vague. Reply with template and forward filter actions do work for me...
Sorry... The patch you just added for the "reply-to" headers for POP3... It's still not working. :(
if you're running nightly builds, it would be in the next nightly build after the fix was checked in...I tried this again and it worked fine.
If I try to manually apply a filter that uses the "Forward to" action, it doesn't work, and gives a popup that says "Sending of message failed." Can anyone else confirm this behavior?
*** Bug 234992 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
In Comment #48 David made mention of implementing forwarding with incoming messages forwarded as attachment or inline. I've looked at both the nightly windows build and the 1.5 RC1 build. In both of these filtered forwards attach the email, even though my preferances have been setup to do inline forwarding for all outgoing mail. Is this a redesign, or a hiccup somewhere?
(In reply to comment #89) > the email, even though my preferances have been setup to do inline forwarding > for all outgoing mail. Is this a redesign, or a hiccup somewhere? Forward inline wasn't working properly, disabled (for now, I guess) in bug 298969.
When I choose 'reply with template', I get an empty drop-down list and no explanation. What gives? There doesn't seem to be anything in the 'help' pages about this either.
(In reply to comment #91) > When I choose 'reply with template', I get an empty drop-down list and no > explanation. What gives? If there are messages in the Templates folder of the account, you can select which template to use.
(In reply to comment #92) > If there are messages in the Templates folder of the account, you can select > which template to use. > I only use the local folders (no per-account folders), and am creating a new filter for the local folders with a single message I've written present in the local folders template folder - and yet, the drop-down list is empty.
Hi All,How are You ? I am using Thunderbird 2.0 alpha 1 and i would greatly appreciate a 'out of office' feature so that we can be polite to people similar to ourselves that might send us a email while we are on holiday or otherwise away from our pc/ mobile/ blackberry.
Out of office Mails suck big time!
Just yesterday had the boss asking why we can't do this. I had to explain to him that it is a feature of the mail server Exchange, which we do not use.
(In reply to comment #96) > it is a feature of the mail server Exchange, which we do not use. > Actually, *many* mail servers provide this functionality. In fact, I'm surprised that there are any servers which do not. That said, in today's climate of hundreds of emails pouring in per day to users' inboxes, auto-replies are simply not what they once were, and tend to generate more traffic than they alleviate. Perhaps a better approach is to simply modify one's signature with the dates of an upcoming vacation. While this won't notify users who do not correspond regularly, it will be sufficient for regular business correspondence. The whole issue of whether to send autoreplies or not aside, realize that when responding to spam is the single *worst* thing to do, as it will alert the sending 'bot that it has a live address. This is the main reason I have pretty much stopped the practice of using auto-responders. Anyway, the above is OT for this discussion, which is to provide this functionality for those who do indeed want it. just my two cents worth. Lewis
auto reply filters based on a template already exists in thunderbird 2.0alpha, allowing "out of office" replies.
a comment on how forwarding should work. when you forward a message the application doing the forwarding should leave the message body and subject line untouched. the only change should be the addition of a new routing header. also, it should be optional as to whether or not a copy of the forwarded message is left in thunderbird.
(In reply to comment #99) Agreed, but this should go together with a filter action which modifies one of header, in case some people want to add a Fwd: prefix or whatever.
(In reply to comment #99) > a comment on how forwarding should work. > > when you forward a message the application doing the forwarding should leave > the message body and subject line untouched. the only change should be the > addition of a new routing header. > > also, it should be optional as to whether or not a copy of the forwarded > message is left in thunderbird. > This is bouncing, or resending, not forwarding. In addition, there are other headers which need to be added to a bounced message (See RFC2822): 3.6.6. Resent fields Resent fields SHOULD be added to any message that is reintroduced by a user into the transport system. A separate set of resent fields SHOULD be added each time this is done. All of the resent fields corresponding to a particular resending of the message SHOULD be together. Each new set of resent fields is prepended to the message; that is, the most recent set of resent fields appear earlier in the message. No other fields in the message are changed when resent fields are added. Each of the resent fields corresponds to a particular field elsewhere in the syntax. For instance, the "Resent-Date:" field corresponds to the "Date:" field and the "Resent-To:" field corresponds to the "To:" field. In each case, the syntax for the field body is identical to the syntax given previously for the corresponding field. When resent fields are used, the "Resent-From:" and "Resent-Date:" fields MUST be sent. The "Resent-Message-ID:" field SHOULD be sent. "Resent-Sender:" SHOULD NOT be used if "Resent-Sender:" would be identical to "Resent-From:". resent-date = "Resent-Date:" date-time CRLF resent-from = "Resent-From:" mailbox-list CRLF resent-sender = "Resent-Sender:" mailbox CRLF resent-to = "Resent-To:" address-list CRLF resent-cc = "Resent-Cc:" address-list CRLF resent-bcc = "Resent-Bcc:" (address-list / [CFWS]) CRLF resent-msg-id = "Resent-Message-ID:" msg-id CRLF Resent fields are used to identify a message as having been reintroduced into the transport system by a user. The purpose of using resent fields is to have the message appear to the final recipient as if it were sent directly by the original sender, with all of the original fields remaining the same. Each set of resent fields correspond to a particular resending event. That is, if a message is resent multiple times, each set of resent fields gives identifying information for each individual time. Resent fields are strictly informational. They MUST NOT be used in the normal processing of replies or other such automatic actions on messages. Note: Reintroducing a message into the transport system and using resent fields is a different operation from "forwarding". "Forwarding" has two meanings: One sense of forwarding is that a mail reading program can be told by a user to forward a copy of a message to another person, making the forwarded message the body of the new message. A forwarded message in this sense does not appear to have come from the original sender, but is an entirely new message from the forwarder of the message. On the other hand, forwarding is also used to mean when a mail transport program gets a message and forwards it on to a different destination for final delivery. Resent header fields are not intended for use with either type of forwarding. I make the distinction here not to be argumentative, but to simply differentiate between auto-forward and bounce. An auto-forward should simply do what a user would do to forward a message, i.e., encapsulate that message in a new one and sending the resulting combination to a third party. A bounce should not appear to the end user to be any different from the original, with the exception of the added headers as outlined in RFC2822. One of the more annoying issues with GroupWise, for example, is the erroneous use of the term "bounce" for what is essentially an auto-forward rule. I think it important that application which pride themselves on tightly adhering to standards (SM and TBird) differentiate between these two actions. Just another few cents to throw into the mix. ;-) Lewis
Can anyone advise please where the development of bounce/resend is and whether or not it is compatible with IMAP? I've used Eudora for years, because it does redirect, and am now watching Penelope since Qualcomm announced the closure of development/support on Eurdora.
Can we get some sort of blocking for this (whatever isn't already done)? Or change the severity from RFE? The stuff that this is blocking is little stuff, but it'll keep some people from switching, especially in an office environment.
You do know that people have been asking for this for 9 years don't you? Don't you think you should do it now? Hmm...
who (really) owns this and could he/she please provide a forecast (estimate) on the resolution delivery date? cheers... Vitus
(In reply to comment #105) > You do know that people have been asking for this for 9 years don't you? > Don't you think you should do it now? > Hmm... Bug 350 is older and as of yet unfixed, as is bug 915. For some time now, there have been only two fulltime workers on mailnews: David Bienvenu and mscott (both of whom are retiring). The codebase is large and in desperate need of some basic overhauls; I am thinking about implementing this, but I have a long list of other features that I am working on, some as old as this request. If you want it so badly, then you could try working on it. (In reply to comment #106) > who (really) owns this and could he/she please provide a forecast (estimate) on > the resolution delivery date? David Bienvenu's comments imply that, to some degree, this is already implemented, although not fully satisfactory. I doubt that he is still working on this currently, though, so it is probably unowned. Delivery date may or may not be TB 3.
(In reply to comment #107) > (In reply to comment #105) > > You do know that people have been asking for this for 9 years don't you? > > Don't you think you should do it now? > > Hmm... > > Bug 350 is older and as of yet unfixed, as is bug 915. > For some time now, there have been only two fulltime workers on mailnews: David > Bienvenu and mscott (both of whom are retiring). The codebase is large and in > desperate need of some basic overhauls; I am thinking about implementing this, > but I have a long list of other features that I am working on, some as old as > this request. If you want it so badly, then you could try working on it. Sorry about that, I understand that there is a lot of work that's underway but I just thought that this is some useful functionality that is worth adding since it is implemented in several other e-mail clients (I believe) which is in fact one reason why some people are sticking with other e-mail clients (see comment #103) and, since I am new to bugzilla (this was the first time I had used it), I wasn't aware of the other bugs mentioned. Thank you for you work on this bug but I think for now I think I'll stay clear of bugzilla and hope that this feature does get implemented.
FYI. Bug 312025 has been fixed(Tb3.1b1). "forward by filter" now respects user's prefs.js setting for forward in inline or attachment.
Summary: new filter actions: Auto reply, forward, bounce → Implement new filter actions: Auto reply, forward, bounce
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.