Junk mail filtered before message rules

[Guest]

Using Windows Mail, I am subscribed to several newsgroups. I have message
rules set up to sort all messages with "[foo]" in the subject line into the
"foo" folder, "[bar]" goes into the "bar" folder.

Nothing complicated.

Problem is that the Junk Mail filtering takes place BEFORE it applies the
message rules, and some of the postings from the foo and bar mailing lists
get moved into the junk mail folder where they never get processed by the
rules.

I am forced to then manually run the rules filter, select all message rules,
selecting the Junk Mail folder, apply now. I have to then run this daily.

I have looked for a way to change the order of processing: have the rules
run prior to the junk filter, or simply have the rules filter include the
junk mail folder in its processing of new messages to no avail.

I'd say this is a 'bug' or rather an overlook of the design of the new junk
mail feature. Is there a way to work around this?

 

[mikeyhsd]

with the header hi-lited, click on MESSAGE at the top , select JUNK Mail and click on ADD to SAFE SENDER.

(e-mail address removed)@sport.rr.com

Using Windows Mail, I am subscribed to several newsgroups. I have message
rules set up to sort all messages with "[foo]" in the subject line into the
"foo" folder, "[bar]" goes into the "bar" folder.

Nothing complicated.

Problem is that the Junk Mail filtering takes place BEFORE it applies the
message rules, and some of the postings from the foo and bar mailing lists
get moved into the junk mail folder where they never get processed by the
rules.

I am forced to then manually run the rules filter, select all message rules,
selecting the Junk Mail folder, apply now. I have to then run this daily.

I have looked for a way to change the order of processing: have the rules
run prior to the junk filter, or simply have the rules filter include the
junk mail folder in its processing of new messages to no avail.

I'd say this is a 'bug' or rather an overlook of the design of the new junk
mail feature. Is there a way to work around this?

 

[Guest]

It is not the *SENDER* that is the problem... each message comes from a
different person being posted to a mailing list. I would have to add all 5
billion people on the full-disclosure list... there is no way to add the
"subject line" to the safe senders list that I can see.

 

[Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM]

Using Windows Mail, I am subscribed to several newsgroups. I have message
rules set up to sort all messages with "[foo]" in the subject line into
the
"foo" folder, "[bar]" goes into the "bar" folder.

Nothing complicated.

Problem is that the Junk Mail filtering takes place BEFORE it applies the
message rules, and some of the postings from the foo and bar mailing lists
get moved into the junk mail folder where they never get processed by the
rules.

I am forced to then manually run the rules filter, select all message
rules,
selecting the Junk Mail folder, apply now. I have to then run this daily.

I have looked for a way to change the order of processing: have the rules
run prior to the junk filter, or simply have the rules filter include the
junk mail folder in its processing of new messages to no avail.

I'd say this is a 'bug' or rather an overlook of the design of the new
junk
mail feature. Is there a way to work around this?

Extremely annoying, isn't it? This is definitely a design flaw.

 

[Guest]

Update: it IS actually processing the rules first, but I did get a
crypto-gram from bruse schneier that was appeared in the crypto-gram folder,
I clicked on the folder and it was gone - it had been detected as spam and
removed to the junk mail folder.

Using Windows Mail, I am subscribed to several newsgroups. I have message
rules set up to sort all messages with "[foo]" in the subject line into
the
"foo" folder, "[bar]" goes into the "bar" folder.

Nothing complicated.

Problem is that the Junk Mail filtering takes place BEFORE it applies the
message rules, and some of the postings from the foo and bar mailing lists
get moved into the junk mail folder where they never get processed by the
rules.

I am forced to then manually run the rules filter, select all message
rules,
selecting the Junk Mail folder, apply now. I have to then run this daily.

I have looked for a way to change the order of processing: have the rules
run prior to the junk filter, or simply have the rules filter include the
junk mail folder in its processing of new messages to no avail.

I'd say this is a 'bug' or rather an overlook of the design of the new
junk
mail feature. Is there a way to work around this?

Extremely annoying, isn't it? This is definitely a design flaw.

 

[Steve Cochran]

Well that's even worse. We're strongly advocating to MS that improvements
be made along these lines. Unfortunately there's no fix at the moment.

steve

Update: it IS actually processing the rules first, but I did get a
crypto-gram from bruse schneier that was appeared in the crypto-gram
folder,
I clicked on the folder and it was gone - it had been detected as spam and
removed to the junk mail folder.

Using Windows Mail, I am subscribed to several newsgroups. I have
message
rules set up to sort all messages with "[foo]" in the subject line into
the
"foo" folder, "[bar]" goes into the "bar" folder.

Nothing complicated.

Problem is that the Junk Mail filtering takes place BEFORE it applies
the
message rules, and some of the postings from the foo and bar mailing
lists
get moved into the junk mail folder where they never get processed by
the
rules.

I am forced to then manually run the rules filter, select all message
rules,
selecting the Junk Mail folder, apply now. I have to then run this
daily.

I have looked for a way to change the order of processing: have the
rules
run prior to the junk filter, or simply have the rules filter include
the
junk mail folder in its processing of new messages to no avail.

I'd say this is a 'bug' or rather an overlook of the design of the new
junk
mail feature. Is there a way to work around this?

Extremely annoying, isn't it? This is definitely a design flaw.