Smart folder seems dumb

Question

Smart folder seems dumb

Maybe it's me...

I've tried entering every possible variation of subject line into a smart folder in Mail, to move messages from a certain email discussion list to that folder. Nevertheless, many messages, seemingly described accurately in the smart folder's inclusion criteria, don't make it to the smart folder.

Is this a known issue?

The larger problem is that the filter for the smart folder doesn't seem to have a "reply to" criterion. Some email discussion lists are best identified by their reply-to addresses.

Am I overlooking something? Suggestions?

Thanks in advance,

Tim

533 mhz dual CPU G4 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Posted on Jul 10, 2006 1:18 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Jul 10, 2006 4:18 PM in response to Timothy Miller

I just complain on support forums to fill up my
otherwise empty life.

???

The email address is always the same, but the recipient's
name is inconsistent, depending on how the user enters it.

I don't fully understand this. What does being inconsistent mean here? If participants must send their messages to use-revolution@lists.runrev.com, there is no way to be inconsistent about that. Unless the list server suppresses that address from the headers, then a single condition specifying [Any Recipient] [Contains] use-revolution (or [Any Recipient] [Contains] lists.runrev.com) should work...

No matter how I enter the "any recipient" field, many
messages stay in the in box instead of getting sent
to the smart folder.

Well, they shouldn't be sent to the smart mailbox, but they should definitely appear there...

It doesn't seem like so many similar criteria should
be necessary.

Agreed. A single condition is all that should be needed. I don't understand why it doesn't work for you.

Even when "any recipient" meets one or more of these
criteria, the message often remains in the in basket.

The messages shouldn't remain in the Inbox often. They should remain there always. That's how smart mailboxes work.

Some messages do get picked up by the smart folder.
Others don't. I don't see a pattern.

Could this be a Spotlight issue?

Maybe if I could get the smart folder to work right,
the "reply to" criterion would be irrelevant.

I think so.

I tried a smart folder instead of a filter. I thought
it would be easier. Maybe smart folders and filters
use different mechanisms. I haven't tried to do the
same thing with a filter yet.

Not only do they use different mechanisms (smart folders use Spotlight, whereas rules do not), but they serve different purposes as well. I you do actually want your messages to be moved out of the Inbox and into their own mailbox, that's what rules are for -- and they allow you to to specify arbitrary headers in the conditions.

Reply

Answer 2

Jul 10, 2006 2:48 PM in response to Timothy Miller

Is this a known issue?

Which issue? Unless you provide an example describing what you do, what do you expect to happen, and what does actually happen, there is no way for us to know whether there is actually an issue here.

The larger problem is that the filter for the smart
folder doesn't seem to have a "reply to" criterion.

This is correct, and I know of no way to overcome it.

Some email discussion lists are best identified by
their reply-to addresses.

Are you actually subscribed to any mailing lists for which the [Any Recipient] [Contains] list-address condition wouldn't work?

Reply

Answer 3

R C-R

Level 6

17,794 points

Jul 10, 2006 3:25 PM in response to David Gimeno Gost

Here is a possible workaround that I haven't fully tested yet, based on the observation that Smart Folder criteria are more limited than rule criteria.

There is no "Reply-To" rule decision criterion in the default rules list but you can add any header item to the list with the last decision criterion, "Edit header list." Adding a header entry works: I just set a rule to flag all "Reply-To" entries from a discussion list I subscribe to, applied it, & flagged the selected message.

{Caveats:
a) Make sure the added header is exactly what the email displays. I did so by using View -> Messages -> Show Long Headers & copying & pasting the header item into the list.
b) Make sure the rule is early enough in the rules list that some other rule doesn't intercept the email before it gets to it.}

So, my thinking is that you can create a rule for handling "Reply-To" headers whose action either moves the discussion list messages to a real folder created for such things; or possibly sets one of the Smart Folder criteria that, together with others, would uniquely identify it as a member of the 'smart set.' (IOW, flagged + from + whatever, for instance.)

As far as this being an "issue," I think it qualifies as more of a feature request to make Mail's Smart Folders smarter by including a wider range of filter criteria.

Reply

Answer 4

Jul 10, 2006 3:29 PM in response to David Gimeno Gost

David wrote:

Are you actually subscribed to any mailing lists for which
the [Any Recipient] [Contains] list-address condition
wouldn't work?

No. I just complain on support forums to fill up my otherwise empty life.

My original question was not quite correct.

It's not the subject line in the smart folder criteria that's causing the problem. It's the "Any recipient" criterion.

I've filled in several different versions of the list address -- examples follow. (The email address is always the same, but the recipient's name is inconsistent, depending on how the user enters it.) No matter how I enter the "any recipient" field, many messages stay in the in box instead of getting sent to the smart folder.

examples of "any recipient contains" criterion:

use-revolution
<use-revolution
How to Use Revolution
lists.runrev.com
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com

It doesn't seem like so many similar criteria should be necessary. I kept adding them, hoping that the smart folder would start snagging more of the messages.

Yes, I did select "any" criterion and not "all" criteria.

Even when "any recipient" meets one or more of these criteria, the message often remains in the in basket. Some messages do get picked up by the smart folder. Others don't. I don't see a pattern.

The name and address in the reply to field is always the same.

Maybe if I could get the smart folder to work right, the "reply to" criterion would be irrelevant.

I tried a smart folder instead of a filter. I thought it would be easier. Maybe smart folders and filters use different mechanisms. I haven't tried to do the same thing with a filter yet.

Tim Miller

Reply

Answer 5

Jul 10, 2006 5:52 PM in response to David Gimeno Gost

Well, David, I think you nailed it.

I've disabled Spotlight because it is so inaccurate it is hardly worth using. I use Easy Find instead. That's probably why the smart folder isn't working.

To be more precise, I've had it disabled at times, and I've enabled it at other times. I force it to re-index periodically.

So if I'm going to disable Spotlight, I guess I should use filters instead of smart folders in Mail.

I understand Apple has been trying to improve Spotlight, but as far as I know, it still sometimes fails to find simple documents in obvious locations in OS 10.4.7.

FWIW, I'll clarify your question about the recipient address.

The list address is always the same, i.e., use-revolution@lists.runrev.com

However, users give the address different names. One user might send a message to "rev list" <use-revolution@lists.runrev.com> While another user might mail a message to "How-to-use-revolution" <use-revolution@lists.runrev.com>, and so on.

I thought different names for the same address might be confusing the smart folder. It was just a theory. I guess it was wrong.

I thought that a smart folder would move a message from the in box to the smart folder. You seem to be suggesting a smart folder copies a message from the in box to the smart folder.

Would you mind clarifying that?

Thanks for all your help, on this thread and another on the same forum.

Tim

533 mhz dual CPU G4 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Reply

Answer 6

Jul 10, 2006 6:24 PM in response to Timothy Miller

I thought that a smart folder would move a message from the in box to the smart folder. You seem to be suggesting a smart folder copies a message from the in box to the smart folder.

David is right about that. Smart folders in Mail are just like smart folders in Finder.. They show the results of a Spotlight based query run on the messages. The "folder" does not actually contain any files and nothing is moved into the folder, they are just shown together as results from the query.

Unless you have performance or other problems associated with Spotlight running, you'd probably be better off just leaving it on, since it is the search engine for Finder, Mail, and AddressBook. Reindexing periodically defeats the purpose of using it unless you have some other issues.

Reply

Answer 7

R C-R

Level 6

17,794 points

Jul 10, 2006 7:02 PM in response to Timothy Miller

Timothy,

In rereading your posts, I'm trying to figure out why (or if) you used the "any recipient" criterion for what I assume are incoming messages to you from a list serve. Recipients are those who receive the message, such as yourself or any CC's in the header, so the "any recipient" criterion checks all of the text in "To" & "CC," in your case looking for messages addressed to the various permutations of the email address text you have entered.

If you want to find incoming messages based on the sender, why not just use the "From" criterion, set for "contains use-revolution@lists.runrev.com" (or some subset of that text)? This works perfectly for the lists I subscribe to, so long as the list serve sends the message & it is not sent directly from individual list members.

Reply

Answer 8

Jul 10, 2006 8:00 PM in response to Mike-N-nahyunil

Hi Mike,

I wasn't aware of the relationship between "smart" folders and Spotlight. I have rarely used smart folders until recently, so I'm kind of not-clued about them. I sometimes use smart folders in iTunes.

I'm not certain... You seem to be suggesting that if I force Spotlight to re-index, I'm going to end up with inaccurate smart folders. Like, if I force Spotlight to re-index, it won't re-index smart folders already set up.

Is that what you mean to say? If so, you're right, I'm going to have to re-think the way I deal with Spotlight.

Best regards,

Tim

533 mhz dual CPU G4 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Reply

Answer 9

Jul 10, 2006 8:10 PM in response to R C-R

Hello R C-R,

Well, I've been wrong before. I've been doing this for a long time, but as a user, not a computer pro, and computing really isn't my hobby, either.

AFAIK, email discussion lists are not completely standard in the way they address public messages to subscribers. "From" "To" "CC" and "Reply to" vary a bit from list to list.

I think one reason lists don't all address public messages the same way is that some lists want replies to go to the individual poster, with an option of a cc to public messages, some lists want replies to go to public messages, with an optional cc to the poster, and so on.

For this reason, a "reply to" criterion for smart folders AND filters in Mail would be slightly helpful to some users.

If I'm wrong, feel free to set me straight.

The main issue has been mine, all along, apparently. I would have been fine if I had used a filter instead of a smart folder, and I would have been fine if I had not messed with Spotlight.

Since we're on the subject of Spotlight, is it missing fewer searches in OS 10.4.7 than it did in previous versions?

cheers,

Tim

533 mhz dual CPU G4 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Reply

Answer 10

R C-R

Level 6

17,794 points

Jul 10, 2006 8:38 PM in response to Timothy Miller

Timothy,

Smart Folders are just savable searches displayed in a Finder-like or application-like way. They don't "contain" anything except the set of search criteria used to create them. They search indexes of metadata describing the contents of files & display the results those indexes indicate meet the search criteria. Each time you "open" a Smart Folder you are in effect running the search again.

The more accurate or complete the index, the better the search based on it will be. Thus, re-indexing won't make Smart Folders inaccurate but more accurate.

Some Smart Folders themselves are indexed, but that has nothing to do with what Mail's Smart Folders display. Just think of Mail's Smart Folders as saved email searches & you should do OK.

Reply

Answer 11

Jul 11, 2006 5:03 AM in response to Timothy Miller

I believe the other participants have mostly answered your questions about how smart mailboxes work. A few comments are in order, though.

First of all, let's be clear what is it that we're talking about here. If we're talking about discussion lists, then I know of no such mailing list where the From header contains the address of the list itself. That only makes sense for one-way distribution lists (i.e. announcement lists). Now, if we're talking about mailing lists in general (both discussion lists and announcement lists), then it should be no surprise that "lists are not completely standard in the way they address public messages to subscribers". Whether it's appropriate to use From or Any Recipient in the condition to be evaluated depends obviously on the type of list.

As to how smart mailboxes work, you can learn about them in Mail Help. Messages are neither moved nor copied into the smart mailbox. They are just displayed there if they satisfy the search criteria. Whatever you do to a message in a smart mailbox, you're doing it to the original message in whatever mailbox it's actually being stored.

And last, but not least, what does Spotlight not working the way you wish have to do with disabling it? What is it exactly that you are trying to accomplish by disabling Spotlight and manually reindexing everything from time to time?

Reply

Answer 12

R C-R

Level 6

17,794 points

Jul 11, 2006 9:44 AM in response to Timothy Miller

AFAIK, email discussion lists are not completely
standard in the way they address public messages to
subscribers. "From" "To" "CC" and "Reply to" vary a
bit from list to list.

Sure. There are de facto standard behaviors defined by popular mailing list server products like "LISTSERV" or "Majordomo," but anybody can run a list however they want.

I think one reason lists don't all address public
messages the same way is that some lists want replies
to go to the individual poster, with an option of a
cc to public messages, some lists want replies to go
to public messages, with an optional cc to the
poster, and so on.

This really doesn't have much to do with using the sender as a criterion for any message sent from the mailing list server itself. In your case, "From contains use-revolution@lists.runrev.com" should work for those messages. Adding other criteria & changing "all" to "any" may help if you want to include messages sent directly from individual list members.

IOW, don't confuse sender & any other header info when building your criteria, either with Smart Folders or rule filters.

For this reason, a "reply to" criterion for smart
folders AND filters in Mail would be slightly helpful
to some users.

I can't disagree with that, noting only that rule filters already have this capability so it should not be that hard to add it to Smart Folders.

I would have been fine if I had used a filter instead
of a smart folder, and I would have been fine if I
had not messed with Spotlight.

All of this is is undoable. Undo whatever you have done to disable Spotlight, allow it to reindex your drive, & create your Smart Folders and/or rules as needed.

Since we're on the subject of Spotlight, is it
missing fewer searches in OS 10.4.7 than it did in
previous versions?

I haven't looked into that yet but since it doesn't seem to be on the list of fixes for 10.4.7, I doubt there are any improvements. Oh well.

Reply

Answer 13

R C-R

Level 6

17,794 points

Jul 11, 2006 10:02 AM in response to David Gimeno Gost

FWIW, I assumed from the context of this topic that "email discussion list" referred to discussions distributed through mail list servers, which email messages to subscribers from the server itself & thus do contain the list server address as the sender. If lists.runrev.com is of this type, using the "From" criterion should work just fine.

Reply

Answer 14

Jul 11, 2006 12:43 PM in response to David Gimeno Gost

David wrote:

And last, but not least, what does Spotlight not working the
way you wish have to do with disabling it? What is
it exactly that you are trying to accomplish by disabling
Spotlight and manually reindexing everything from time to
time?

That's a good question, and of general interest.

I had a bad experience a few months ago. According to Spotlight, an important file seemed to have disappeared. I did a manual search too, but apparently overlooked it. I thought I had erased it accidentally. I was distraught.

A week later, I came across the file accidentally, while looking for something else. It was where I had saved it. There was nothing odd about the file name, location or type.

Careful checking indicated that Spotlight was simply failing to find it. I tried all kinds of search criteria -- date, contents, various ways of searching for the file name. Spotlight just didn't know it was there.

I logged on to Apple's discussion group and learned, to my surprise, that my experience is a common event among OS X users these days. The consensus on that group was that Spotlight is more trouble than it's worth. The usual advice is to disable Spotlight with a shareware utility called Spotless, and use Easy Find (also a shareware utility) instead, even though it's a lot slower. Oh yeah -- Some folks on that group suggest going back to Panther. Panther's find file function worked reliably.

So, I got Easy Find and disabled Spotlight.

I've reconsidered since then. Spotlight isn't completely useless. You just have to be forewarned that it can't always find things.

So, now I force Spotlight to re-index once every week or two, and I've got Easy Find as a backup search utility.

I hope this is of some use to someone.

Thanks to everybody for all the good comments.

Tim

533 mhz dual CPU G4 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Reply

Answer 15

R C-R

Level 6

17,794 points

Jul 11, 2006 12:50 PM in response to Timothy Miller

Glad I could contribute something useful to the solution, which I assume you now have. FWIW, I haven't found the transition to Mail.app all that easy, & most of what I've mentioned has been through trial & error.

The app could certainly stand better documentation!

Reply