In Eudora for Win you can define filters that depends
on ANY text in
body of the mail
anywhere in the mail
it whould be helbfull to have at least the possibility to
to assign multiple actions
Also see bug 11034 for forwarding as a filter action.
Thought we had a request for multiple actions already filed, but I don't see it
right now. I know we decided not to implement but a single filter action
reassigning to naving
duplicate of bug 13145 ?
Really miss ability to forward and then delete messages!
*** Bug 159361 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Can someone explain why this can't be implemented? Sure, it wastes a little
bandwidth, but would save time, which for some of us is much more important.
For instance, I want to filter out all these "bug xxxx has been marked a dup"
Who says it can't be done? I think it's just a matter of coming up with a patch.
See comment 5 in bug 127250:
"No. No body filter criteria option is/should be provided even for IMAP folders
downloaded for offline use."
Urk. I thought I'd work out a quick method of defining a throw-away filter to
deal with a particularly big bunch of bugspam - but without this, it's not going
to work. At least for those of us who use decent mail protocols...
/me goes away to think of a workaround.
Modifying summary to include IMAP - this one puzzled me for a while before I saw
that part of it. Dropping the forward and multi action parts as there are other
bugs for that. Also see bug 56781 and bug 40528 for previous discussion (scant
as it is) of this option.
I guess I don't understand why filters can't include body when that is exactly
what happens when junk-mail filtering occurs. Anyway we can piggyback the calls
(or cache one of the calls for the messages, or call any body filters
before/after a pull for junk mail analysis) so we don't have to call a message
(body) more than once? To say that we are concerned with bandwidth for standard
filters and not junkmail filtering is a bit disingenuous.
> I guess I don't understand why filters can't include body when that is exactly
> what happens when junk-mail filtering occurs.
yes, it is possible to implement body text filters (or "has attachment(s)", as
nbaca has pointed out, which I think there is a bug for), doing this.
I wouldn't tie it into the junk mail filters (as the user might not be using
it), but I'd hope we'd be smart to:
1) improve and re-use the nsIMsgFilterPlugin.idl interface
2) make it so if I got the body (and text parts) for the filter, we wouldn't go
get it again for junk mail (if both were being used)
all this said, futuring.
*** Bug 208999 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 249053 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 222286 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 235010 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
No one interested in adding this *important* functionality ?
Well if no one is interested in making this work as the filter advertizes
itself, then maybe someone should create some wording in the filters dialog to
indicate that this won't work so people will stop trying to use the filters in a
logically intuitive fashion which in fact does not work when all appearences
*** Bug 272506 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 277336 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 238113 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217034#c11 for a
possible workaround to this problem.
(In reply to comment #22)
> Please see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217034#c11 for a
> possible workaround to this problem.
The workaround doesn't work for the IMAP body case.
I would like to see this implemented as quickly as possible.
As a system administrator I am responsible for forwarding particular emails to various people based on their content. Without this functionality I cannot recommend thunderbird to people performing similar tasks.
Also it has been reported in the mozillazine forum that it is possible to make this work with IMAP by adding a "Body" custom header. These reports do point out that this functionality does not work on the latest 1.5RC1.
Increasing priority as it is really pending from long time now and it is one of the basic thing needed in any email client.
Hemant, please do not change target, priority or any other flags when a bug is not assigned to you. They are used by the developers to track their own bugs. Thanks.
*** Bug 338283 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I’m currently using qmail on my system with which Thunderbird interfaces very nicely. However I need the body filter in order to help my techs organize email into categories and even so that they can ignore email that is just meant as archival record. A perl script could be written to filter the email before it's downloaded to the client, but I'd rather leave that server alone since it’s been so stable for us. Hopefully this can be resolved, I see that the search feature works just fine on the Body of email, so it seems like filter capability shouldn't be that difficult.
*** Bug 367656 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
it has SO many votes + SO many duplicates and you STILL don't even bother to care????
nice guys.. keep up that "good" work :(
Can some one please add a thorough explanation to this thread on why this cannot/should not be implemented (some external links in other bug reports are now dead, and with them the explanation I assume). If it can/should be implemented, what makes the implementation so difficult?
I've seen comments about bandwidth usage and IMAP, and I can see how one might not want to download the message body all the time when using IMAP. But then again, if this is what the user wants, why should Thunderbird be the limitation? I'm using IMAP because I want manage my mail on the server, not because I need to save bandwidth.
Acatually, the search can already be done manually and if I create a new Saved Search Folder I can even do it done automatically, even with IMAP. When I create the Saves Search Folder there is a check box and a warning saying "Search Online (Gives up-to-date results for IMAP and News folders but increases time to open the folder)". Seems fair. So basically I can do this, just not have it label my messages Important/Todo/Later like I want to. So close, but yet so far away ;) Is there really now way of doing this for message filters as well?
Right now it just seems like this problem is deemed not important, and I believe a lot of people think it is. I hope someone can shed some light on this.
I'm sure this is explained in one of the many duplicates of this bug, but here goes again:
This is not easy. To filter on message bodies, we'd need to download and store message bodies before applying message filters. We currently only download message headers before applying filters. We'd also need to make the imap filtering code capable of reading the offline message store to do body filters.
The way I would do this would be to somehow check if any imap message filters had body search criteria. If so, we would fetch message headers *and* message bodies at the same time, and store the message bodies in the offline store, and when all the headers and all the message bodies had been completely downloaded, then apply the filters.
I'm not sure that would be acceptable. What people would want instead is for us to only download the message bodies if we need to evaluate a body search term, and that would involve rewriting the imap filter running code to be asynchronous, which would be hard.
how is it possible that search works? is it some server-side function then? to search from body.. if yes, then is it maybe somehow possible to merge this function with filters?
again, server search is asynchronous, so the filtering code would need to be rewritten to use server search, at least for body terms, and to deal with asynchronous results.
Fetching all of the message headers and bodies would be acceptable to some (perhaps most) users. It would be reasonable to post a warning dialog the first time a user tries to filter using "Body".
There are various posts about how to get this to work on older versions of TB (<1.5). Can you explain why it would work in those cases, but not in newer versions?
IMO, the lack of 'Body' filtering with IMAP is a HUGE limitation that will severely limit TB adoption in the corporate world. My #1 reason for using TB is for message filtering. With the 'Body' limitation, there is no reason for my colleagues to make the switch from Lotus Notes -- well, there are still reasons but they are less compelling.
I don't see any problem downloading all bodies for filtering - I have to download the whole e-mail for Junk-Filter anyway. Hopefully, the mail doesn't have to be downloaded twice...
My network is fast, and my computer is faster; the only bottleneck for my use of this feature is the development time, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. For users who are concerned about bandwidth, apply body filters as late as possible (like a short-circuit evaluation, in order of increasing expensiveness); it might be a pain to code, but in the long term - tho less than the 6 years it's taken for this to be addressed - it's a far bigger pain to not have the feature. I think the warning dialog is a good idea, and I'd add a warning that informs the user when a filter is running and is required to take longer or download more than some threshold setting.
I suppose when we get to where we can download the body without the attachments people will fight about weather we should be able to have filter rules that need to download attachments to be evaluated. &sigh;.
sorry for the spam. making bugzilla reflect reality as I'm not working on these bugs. filter on FOOBARCHEESE to remove these in bulk.
Let's make this perfectly clear.
David Bienvenu in Comment 32 says,
>we would fetch message headers *and* message
>bodies at the same time, and store the message bodies in the offline store, and
>when all the headers and all the message bodies had been completely downloaded,
>then apply the filters.
>I'm not sure that would be acceptable.
YES IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. PLEASE MAKE IT WORK AGAIN. Do you not see all the people clamoring for this functionality??
Understand: People don't use IMAP because it only downloads the headers. People use IMAP because they can have multiple e-mail clients on multiple machines, and they all stay nicely in sync, automatically. Bandwidth is plentiful. Users' TIME is not.
(In reply to comment #39)
> YES IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. PLEASE MAKE IT WORK AGAIN. Do you not see all the
> people clamoring for this functionality??
> Understand: People don't use IMAP because it only downloads the headers.
> People use IMAP because they can have multiple e-mail clients on multiple
> machines, and they all stay nicely in sync, automatically. Bandwidth is
> plentiful. Users' TIME is not.
I agree 100%. However, even though bandwidth is plentiful, local disk access is faster.
I have "Make the messages in my Inbox available when I am working offline" specifically so that Seamonkey will always download all messages, including the bodies. This makes it faster to read email, because then Seamonkey doesn't have to download a message every time I click on it.
It never worked before, so I don't understand the PLEASE MAKE IT WORK AGAIN comment.
And some people do use IMAP because it only downloads headers. YOU don't use it for that reason.
I can't do this right now but I'm happy to help anyone who wants to try to contribute a patch for it.
David, I'm pretty sure this worked under some previous version -- like 1.5. You had to add "body" as a custom message header.
See, for example,
So from our point of view as users, we've lost that functionality. It's possible it only ever worked by accident -- but it was a useful accident!
Hmm, I'd say less accident, and more miracle. I can see that doing that would make us download the body from the server, but I don't know why it would make the filter work - I don't know that we'd store the msg body in the offline store, for example, which would be required for making the filter work. I'll try to find time to test it.
Short version: Why not adding to Pre-filters (i.e. the standard ones) also POST-filter, to be run whenewer a message finally gets to the local mailbox copy?
Alternatively pre-filters could also have the option to set a tag that says to a post filter to actually dowload the message if it gets past the junk detection...
Full version: I do not want to add too much noise, I understand both concerns: I want to be able to dowlonad headers only on a slow connection, but body-filters are actually useful when I'm on a broadband one.
I do not understand why filters have to be applied _before_ junk detection, which is worst. Since changing the implementation now seems to be too hard, we can just add another plug for filters to be run either
1) after message dowloading, to immediatly move the e-mail to its right place
2) after junk processing, when information about the new headers is available, and a filter may present the user a request window with supposedly "important" messages
Don't know the code, bu these options seem less likely to disrupt the existing implementation, they can probably reuse some existing API and impose, in their simples implementation, a small footprint addition to the UI which answers a long-time need.
If I see it correctly, the size of a message is known / described by the header. Is this right? If yes, what about a mandatory field when defining a search for the body limiting this condition to messages smaller than "x"kb? The messages I need this feature for have less than 1 kb, and it really wouldn't make sense scanning all large messages for a string in the body if I know from the size it will never be a match.
Additionally, this can always be the last filter of all required filters, so this should kick out a lot of messages anyway in case I have a quicker filter defined.
I am new to the forum but we use TB extensively in the office. I can say that we hate spam and because of this we use to be able to filter on the body. Now we can not. What I would like to draw attention to is that the other options to filter on do not help much either. The reasoning is that a lot of spammers are just putting something like RE: in the subject line. We we can not go off this because RE can be in any subject and in legimitate emails that we need to look at. The other fields to filter on do no good because we do not know who on any given day is sending it. The only vital way that can differentiate the good emails from the bad are in the body because that is where the sender discloses the purpose of the email. Thank you if you do decide to put this in as soon as possible. I hope that is what is going to be done.
I am interested in using IMAP with Thunderbird, and I think this feature would be very valuable. Currently, I use POP on my major accounts, and have many filtering rules set up. Some of these include body filtering. The obvious advantage to switching to IMAP is that if I move the sorted folders to the server, I can access the /sorted/ email from anywhere.
However, I also want complete offline access to all my email. Thus, I intend to set the "Make the messages in my Inbox available when I'm working offline", and "When I create new folders select them for offline use" (as well as selecting this for existing folders).
Since I would already be downloading all email, I would like to be able to then filter the mail by body. I think this is a minority use case, but not a very unusual one.
I too would like the ability to filter on the body in IMAP messages, even if that means having it only work when full messages are downloaded. I only wish I knew enough to work on a patch.
Add me to the list of people that would LOVE this to work.
I agree with most of the comments. Provide the option and let the user determine if the overhead is too high. We already filter and download these messages at our site but we can't categorizer them correctly unless we can scan the body for information that isn't in the header.
Mozilla provides solutions that generally exceed our needs and as an organization has been highly responsive to the user community. Perhaps this is another opportunity to exceed the average and go beyond the MS-esque response that you just don't need it.
I want this too..
Filter on "Nobody_NScomTLD_20080620"
I don't know the details of the IMAP protocol, so forgive me if this question is simplistic. Would it be possible to say, tell Thunderbird to retrieve only the message text (not the attachments) from the server and then treat that as a header in itself? That would then limit the time spent fetching the messages, plus there wouldn't be the need to store the entire message offline. Just an idea.
I hadn't thought so, but a quick scan of RFC3501 gives me the impression it should be possible with BODYSTRUCTURE and BODY.PEEK. It would be more complicated, but would be a better way to do it, if and when someone has the time.
I would find the ability to filter on the message body with IMAP extremely helpful.
*** Bug 464825 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 502808 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I've noticed that *only* with IMAP used with SSL on Thunderbird 3.0, under server "View settings for this account", there's a new "Synchronization & Storage" option (*only* with SSL, non-SSL IMAP doesn't have this option). If you go into that option, and enable "Keep messages for this account on this computer" *and* click on the "Advanced" button just below this option, and make sure the "Download" option is enabled for the folder(s) you want to body search, then the search body option *will* appear for that folder.
Additionally, if you enable the above option, you can include body searches in the filters (Tools->Message Filters). I'm pretty sure this feature wasn't available before Thunderbird 3.0.
It's sort of bizarre that this new feature is only available for IMAP with SSL enabled. Seems like it should be available for non-SSL IMAP too.
It has nothing to do with SSL, afaik. 3.0 enabled body filters for imap messages; rkent would know the bug and details.
The bug that was fixed that added the body search for imap was bug 127250.
I'm surprised to see I did not make that comment here earlier, since these bugs are closely related and I am well aware of this bug.
As David says, there is no reason for IMAP body filtering to be restricted to SSL, and I would be very surprised if it was.
I suppose though that while we are here, we should discuss the disposition of this bug. I did the work on bug 127250 rather than here, because there really is no practical way to filter on the IMAP body without also downloading that body. so you need to enable offline storage of messages, as Ben correctly notes in comment 58, for this to work. That as the point of bug 127250.
So is there any way or need to filter messages based on body content, without also downloading them for offline use? I suppose you could request 1) use server search or 2) download but not save the body, or 3) silently switch to offline storage if body search is enabled in an account.
Any interest in making this work without storing messages for offline use?
This is pathetic. Years of di
And what is pathetic? This feature now works in the only situation where I imagine it makes sense. I'm just asking if that is the correct interpretation of the need.
Here's my use-case:
I get a ton of bugmail and most of it goes into a sub-folder to read later. However, if someone mentions my name in a bug, I want to tag the message to read now.
Body filtering is much like body viewing: you do need to download the message, you don't need to keep it for later. I'd prefer to have the UI give some notice when a body filter is created (and messages are not automatically downloaded anyway) that applying that filter will force a download of every message it applies to, and then have the downloaded message body stored or not by the same rules as if the message had been viewed.
It would also be good to have the UI give some notice if downloading/storing options change while a body filter is in effect, and to keep some statistics on the increase in downloads due to body filters, but I wouldn't let either of those delay allowing the filters.
(In reply to comment #64)
> Body filtering is much like body viewing: you do need to download the message,
> you don't need to keep it for later. I'd prefer to have the UI give some
> notice when a body filter is created (and messages are not automatically
> downloaded anyway) that applying that filter will force a download of every
> message it applies to, and then have the downloaded message body stored or not
> by the same rules as if the message had been viewed.
These types of issues are the things that scared me away from supporting the case where people are not storing imap messages locally. But my main question was, is there a viable use case for it? Your replies and other make a case for that, so this bug should remain open to cover those.
I'd just like to add that it is possible to only download the text of the message and not any accompanying attachments. I have yet to come across an instance where I have needed to filter a message based on the content of an attachment. Therefore, forcing a download of only the text of the message is not such a bad thing, neither is it that slow.
Here are a few use cases where I need to filter on the body of a message:
1) Bug reports that mention areas that I am interested in.
2) Tag emails with meeting notes that mention projects, keywords (like "show stopper", product names, etc)
3) Tag emails from family with words like "birthday", "anniversary", "death", etc (very few family members actually use calendars for that sort of thing)
Re: comments 58/59/60, requiring SSL with IMAP to search email bodies
Hmmm, I swear I saw that behavior, but I don't now. Apologies for sharing my apparent hallucination with everyone here.
Re: comment 60, interaction of download email options and search body options
I see 2 or 3 questions here:
1) How much slower is it to download emails and save them to the client disk versus just having to download them (to search mail bodies).
My guess is, when you consider how long it takes to get an email from the server, and with modern buffered disk I/O, not all that much slower.
2) How should the GUI be restructured
Right now, the procedure to enable the body option for filters is pretty obscure. The "search body" option just doesn't show up in the filter options unless you know to do a 2 stage enabling procedure (including using an "advanced" button) in the account settings screens. If the "body" option could always available in the filters, and the body would be downloaded and discarded if the "Keep messages for this account on this computer" option and the per folder "download" option were not enabled for this account/folder, that would be great. How hard would it be to do this?
Alternatively, you could automatically enable the "Keep messages for this account on this computer" option and the per folder download option, when someone sets up a body filter, but that just seems like it will have more side effects. Would you unset it if they deleted the filter? But if this was easier to do, it would seem acceptable to me.
(In reply to comment #67)
> 1) How much slower is it to download emails and save them to the client disk
> versus just having to download them (to search mail bodies).
Speed differences are minimal at best, the issue is simply preserving disk space.
> If the "body" option
> could always available in the filters, and the body would be downloaded and
> discarded if the "Keep messages for this account on this computer" option and
> the per folder "download" option were not enabled for this account/folder, that
> would be great. How hard would it be to do this?
Prior to the release of TB 3, the prevailing direction of the product was for download and storage of IMAP messages to be enabled by default, so this whole discussion was pretty moot. But there has been considerable pushback on that. I think that if I did it again, after this current discussion, I would probably ask more questions about the non-offline storage case. I understand that there is a memory cache that holds messages, and can imagine that the difference is fairly trivial between downloading to message cache versus disk. But I actually don't have any experience with the message memory cache, so I am not sure.
Th hard reality though is that filtering is considered a second-order feature, and there is a viable workaround here, so I doubt if this is going to be fixed any time soon.
> Alternatively, you could automatically enable the "Keep messages for this
> account on this computer" option and the per folder download option, when
> someone sets up a body filter, but that just seems like it will have more side
> effects. Would you unset it if they deleted the filter? But if this was
> easier to do, it would seem acceptable to me.
It would be easy, but as you say has issues. Enabling a feature like message download as an unexpected side effect would not be desirable IMHO. But the current complication is also not desirable.
Note, I've added a help item for this under Thunderbird help (which is just a link to the "Thunderbird Knowledge Base" at http://support.mozillamessaging.com ) The URL for the help page is:
A short URL is http://gsfn.us/t/10v3f (All feedback/corrections to this help page are appreciated)
But there's no hierarchical organization to the help web pages (ie. no specific help page for "Search Messages" window) so it's hit or miss if people will find this based on keywords. Also, the help pages don't allow for quoted keywords so a search for "Search Messages" finds all matches for Search and all matches for Messages, blech.
As I understand it, this bug is about filtering (Tools > Message Filters), not searching.
(In reply to comment #70)
> As I understand it, this bug is about filtering (Tools > Message Filters), not
A fair point. This bug is about filtering based on the email body, but it turns out that turning on the "keep messages on this computer" option enables the "body" option for both filtering *and* "Search Messages" (ie., searching across multiple emails)
I've updated the help item I created to reflect this (http://gsfn.us/t/10v3f)
We're finally moving in the right direction, but all of these steps are really not user-friendly.
1) The Body filter-item should always be available in the filter creation dialogue.
2) When the user decides to create a filter that reads bodies,
a) Thunderbird should offer to make all the changes delineated in http://gsfn.us/t/10v3f for the folder in question
b) Thunderbird should warn the user of the disadvantages of making these changes.
3) If the user deletes all filters requiring that the body of the messages of the folder in question be downloaded and kept locally,
a) Thunderbird should offer to undo the chances it made in 2a (if the user agreed)
b) Thunderbird should present the advantages of undoing these changes.
No commonly adopted program should expect its users to manually make so many configurations changes for such a simple and fundamental feature.
I think that such a design would provide all the flexibility that a large base of users needs in order to be happy and productive, given their differing professional and personal requirements.
*** Bug 580560 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
It is possible to filter body text in IMAP now, so shouldn't this bug be marked as RESOLVED? I agree with Grasswhistle that it could be easier to do, but surely that's a different issue?
The work to add IMAP body search in cases where offline storage is enabled was added in a different bug. As I said in comment 65, I would leave this bug open since the job is not complete, but needs to be added for the non-offline storage case as well.
Recommend we close this bug. WFM.
No, comment 76 still applies.
(In reply to Magnus Melin from comment #78)
> No, comment 76 still applies.
I'd recommend creating a new bug and close this one to ease triage.
Well, this bug has all the details, so... (updating the summary)
*** Bug 674848 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to David :Bienvenu from comment #41)
> It never worked before, so I don't understand the PLEASE MAKE IT WORK AGAIN
I don't know the timeline (given I reply to a comment from 2007), but I know in TB 2.0.0.x (x<18) it has worked (without a hack of source or "custom headers" tweak, it just worked out of the box).
So... whatever made it work back then has been lost somehow with the jump to 3.xxx.
Just stumbled on this, and have some additional data to share. We can duplicate this on version 13 & 14, both Mac and PC. It appears to be related to local indexes getting messed up.
If you search (locally, not on server) a folder where everything is normal, Body is an option in the drop-down. Re-name the folder, and try again - Body does not appear. Closing and re-opening Thunderbird does not bring back the ability to do a Body search on this re-named folder, nor does a folder repair. Re-naming back to the original name will bring back the Body option. Or you can unsubscribe-resubscribe to the re-named folder, then Body is again available.
(In reply to Arne Berglund from comment #83)
> If you search (locally, not on server) a folder where everything is normal,
> Body is an option in the drop-down. Re-name the folder, and try again - Body
> does not appear. Closing and re-opening Thunderbird does not bring back the
> ability to do a Body search on this re-named folder, nor does a folder
> repair. Re-naming back to the original name will bring back the Body option.
> Or you can unsubscribe-resubscribe to the re-named folder, then Body is
> again available.
What you are describing does not appear to be the main point of this bug. Could you file that as a new bug?
Ok I have a legitimate Body search problem (likely related) I want to copy all calendar invites coming into my inbox into another place. I did this by the search string -> Content-Type: text/calendar; charset="utf-8"; method=REQUEST <- which only shows a few of them .. I shortened it to -> text calender REQUEST <- which shows them all in quick filter.. But in Tools->Message Filters "body" does not seem to be able to filter them at all, nothing shows up in the filter log
TB 17.0.3 IMAP server (exchange) Theoretically all messages are being copied into the local inbox .. sync and storage are set up to keep messages on server, etc..
The webpage originally linked to in comment 69 seems to be dead, and the information isn't repeated here. So for posterity's sake, the workaround is:
Edit -> Account Settings --> Synchronization & Storage
Tick the box at the top "Keep messages for this account on this computer".
This is documented in the help: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/imap-synchronization (but not the fact that doing so makes body filters work).
I set the checkbox for "Keep messages for this account on this computer".
Now, the Body option appears in the Search dialog.
However, Thunderbird fails to find anything when I search on this field.
It doesn't look like it's performing the search at all.
I am using IMAP SSL.
But "Run search on server" is off in the search dialog.
(In reply to Julien Pierre from comment #87)
> I set the checkbox for "Keep messages for this account on this computer".
> Now, the Body option appears in the Search dialog.
> However, Thunderbird fails to find anything when I search on this field.
> It doesn't look like it's performing the search at all.
> I am using IMAP SSL.
> But "Run search on server" is off in the search dialog.
Even though this issue is about message filtering (and not searching), I cannot confirm this:
1. synchronized account
- search body locally is working
- search body on server is working
2. not synchronized account
- search body locally is not available
- search body on server is working
Well, maybe I'm running into a different bug. But for me, the only way to search body in messages is to copy messsages from my IMAP folder to another folder created under "Local folders", and then search that folder.
Nothing else produces any search results even though the option to search on Body is available.
Any idea what might be the issue ?
I'm having the exact issue as Armin, where I can only search the body when I've selected a top level folder to do body searches. If I pick a nested folder that choice is simply missing from the list. I'm using IMAP and the IMAP is via GMail if that makes a difference.