It would be very useful to be able to include addressbook lists in the filter rules. This enhancement would avoid having to create long filter rules where each member of a list has to be included individually in a "contains" rule. For example, one would be able to select a rule like this: "the <To or CC> <contains someone from the list> friends_list". The list would be evaluated at filter time, not at design time (i.e. the _name_ of the list would be stored in the rule and the rule would be evaluated in the moment the filter is applied). This way, if a list changes its members, the filter will continue to work as expected without changes.
*** Bug 176654 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
See also bug 134603 for filtering on addressbook - it's not 100% identical, but close enough for me to dupe this against. Or we can implement both : filter on address book *and* filter on address list. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 134603 ***
Argh .. didn't mean to dupe already
I think that bug 134603 is oriented to avoid spam, while this bug simply tries to make filter design easier when you want to store in different folders the e-mails sent to a group of people. On the other hand, using address lists in filters would probably solve both problems (or at least the "address list in filters" feature could be reused to solve the spam problem), because a special address list could be created (maybe hidden) to include the spam addresses.
this is an exact duplicate of bug 162789 upon which bug 13460 depends. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 162789 ***
I'm sorry but I don't agree with you when you think this is a duplicate of bug 162789. That bug works at the _addressbook_ level, while this one works at the _addresslist_ level. What is more, the functionality that bug offers does not solve the problem I try to solve with this one. I want to be able to design a filter that stores in a certain folder any e-mail sent to a list that I have already defined. If I have to define a new addressbook for each of my lists (already defined) to be able to design this filter, this is not the solution I need.
I reopen the bug, because I think it's not a duplicate of 162789.
Marking as dupe of bug 180013 (which should properly be a dupe of this one, but as it was reported by a developer and links to another bug with design ideas I think this is the more useful way to go about it). *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 180013 ***