Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read - Mozilla ; In article , "Moz Champion (Dan)" wrote: (snip) > > When YOU manually mark a message, the JMC filter isnt doing anything. > The message is marked read (because you just did read it/or had the > opportunity to do ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

  1. Re: Will these shares go higher?

    In article ,
    "Moz Champion (Dan)" wrote:

    (snip)
    >
    > When YOU manually mark a message, the JMC filter isnt doing anything.
    > The message is marked read (because you just did read it/or had the
    > opportunity to do so), marked as Junk and disposed with in accordance
    > with the settings. Now, when the same message is received afterwards and
    > JMC moves it, it wont be marked as read (if you have that option
    > selected) because you havent read it.
    >
    > You mark a message, you are reading it (or have the opportunity to do
    > so) and the message is marked accordingly. If JMC catches the message,
    > YOU are not reading the message (most of the time you wont even see it
    > prior to JMC moving it) and the message wont be marked as read (unless
    > of course you tell JMC to do so)


    Dan,

    I offer the following to establish a common starting point, which we do
    not seem to be have at the moment.

    So to start with the obvious - to read a message you either :

    (i) select it in the message list when the message pane is open, or
    (ii) double click on it in the message list, regardless of whether or
    not the message pane is open.

    However, with the message pane open you don't need to select the message
    to mark it as junk. All you need to do is toggle on the junk icon in
    the Junk Status column for that message in the message list.

    To elaborate, if you have two consecutive unread messages in the message
    list and then select one, then, if the message pane is open, you will be
    able to read that message, obviously. Now, without selecting the other
    unread message, simply click on its Junk Status column. The column will
    then toggle the Junk Status icon, but the selected message will remain
    that originally selected and the message in the message pane will not
    change from that originally selected.

    This works in both Moz and SM - the only difference being that SM will
    mark the toggled message as read even though it hasn't been selected,
    and hasn't been read. That's my gripe!

    Regards,
    Geoff

  2. Re: Will these shares go higher?

    Geoff Walker wrote:
    > In article ,
    > "Moz Champion (Dan)" wrote:
    >
    > (snip)
    >> When YOU manually mark a message, the JMC filter isnt doing anything.
    >> The message is marked read (because you just did read it/or had the
    >> opportunity to do so), marked as Junk and disposed with in accordance
    >> with the settings. Now, when the same message is received afterwards and
    >> JMC moves it, it wont be marked as read (if you have that option
    >> selected) because you havent read it.
    >>
    >> You mark a message, you are reading it (or have the opportunity to do
    >> so) and the message is marked accordingly. If JMC catches the message,
    >> YOU are not reading the message (most of the time you wont even see it
    >> prior to JMC moving it) and the message wont be marked as read (unless
    >> of course you tell JMC to do so)

    >
    > Dan,
    >
    > I offer the following to establish a common starting point, which we do
    > not seem to be have at the moment.
    >
    > So to start with the obvious - to read a message you either :
    >
    > (i) select it in the message list when the message pane is open, or
    > (ii) double click on it in the message list, regardless of whether or
    > not the message pane is open.
    >
    > However, with the message pane open you don't need to select the message
    > to mark it as junk. All you need to do is toggle on the junk icon in
    > the Junk Status column for that message in the message list.
    >
    > To elaborate, if you have two consecutive unread messages in the message
    > list and then select one, then, if the message pane is open, you will be
    > able to read that message, obviously. Now, without selecting the other
    > unread message, simply click on its Junk Status column. The column will
    > then toggle the Junk Status icon, but the selected message will remain
    > that originally selected and the message in the message pane will not
    > change from that originally selected.
    >
    > This works in both Moz and SM - the only difference being that SM will
    > mark the toggled message as read even though it hasn't been selected,
    > and hasn't been read. That's my gripe!
    >
    > Regards,
    > Geoff


    Ah, yes, we were at different starting points.

    Okay, I just tested using Mozilla 1.7, Thunderbird 1.5 and SeaMonkey 1
    using your method (using the Junk column to mark a message as Junk),
    then, yes, there is a difference in how the messages are marked on
    destination.

    Using Moz 1.7, then a change to the junk status moves the message, marks
    it as junk. The Read status doesnt change (i.e. if it was unread it
    stays unread)

    Using TB 1.5 or SM 1 then a change to the junk status moves the message,
    marks it as junk AND changes it from unread (if so marked) to read.

    In SM, the
    X Mark messages determined to be junk as read
    refers ONLY to the automatic determination, ie. if JMC determines it is
    junk it will be marked read if this is selected or left unread if this
    is not selected. It does not refer to manually marking a message as Junk

    Evidently, the developers of both Thunderbird and SeaMonkey changed the
    effect from Mozilla 1.7. Personally, I prefer it this way, it allows me
    at a glance to know exactly why a message is in the Junk folder on
    review. If it is unread, then it was caught automatically, if it is
    read, then *I* called it junk/spam.
    The effect is the same as if you had highlighted the message (as if to
    read it) and used the Junk button in the toolbar

    I have to apologize tho, I simply never thought of using the Junk status
    column for marking messages as junk, I simply assummed that you were
    highlighting the message and using the Junk Button in the toolbar.

    As to the whys and wherefors of why the change, thats a question for the
    developers.

  3. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    > Jaime A. Cruz, Jr. wrote:
    >> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Um, how can you determine a message IS spam (or Junk) without reading
    >>> it? If you are manually marking the message as Junk, then you are
    >>> reading the message, which is about the only real means of knowing
    >>> whether its spam or not anyway.

    >>
    >> If I get an E-Mail from someone named "Nostradamus Phallus" with a
    >> subject of "Bigger harder erections," well... call me silly but I'm
    >> going to assume it's spam and I'm going to mark it so without reading
    >> it. You mean to tell me you can't tell something is spam just by
    >> looking at the sender and the subject???
    >>

    >
    > Not in all cases. The following spams are all current spams in my Junk
    > Folder - irregardless of the seemingly innocuous subject lines and senders
    >
    > How are you? Vanessa Finch
    > Breaking news Margery@mmedia.nsu.ru
    > New message from on MySpace sent on... New MySpace Messsage
    > Change 0.25 Edith Wyatt
    > FWon't you admit we should find a mar... Kiersten
    > Passedc up for the raise..again? Scottie Goldstein
    > re: News Release Geoffry Bond
    > Re: Swain Jennie
    > Fw.1dantu colfaymz
    > Please Respond Mohamed B Meadows
    > Hey Arthur
    > Good news Or solya Waxman
    > wshut fno cotangent Aldo Rankin
    > Good news Pitambar Kempton
    > -
    > Dear Friend Joseph Afolabi
    > Find more information here! Claudine Finley
    > Hi Briana
    > Re:tv 801 good news Malinda Beaupre
    > Your health is important Jasmine Wright
    > her und Trisha Rudolph
    > Re: uT 308 good news Heaven Raposo
    > Re: MA 660 good news Amilcar Thibodaux
    > Re: spooky Pierce Martin
    > Re: tW 134 good news Goffredo Nadeau
    > Re: bi 215 good news Gobind Fazio
    > Call Me Grisham D.
    > Re: Wc 637 good news Tudor Newman
    > Re: nE 588 good news Epona Schade
    > Re: GI 626 good news Buck Harr
    > I miss you Marisa
    > FW: 1dantu okkxyirdf
    > Are you in good health? Graciela Fitzpatrick
    > Christmas Shopping (Ref: snap)Everette Herrington
    > w news 851s Emmy Seger
    > -
    > stell kby unit Terry Moody
    > Dino Alverez Dino Alverez
    > Shipment Notification grsd Frank
    > X news 1451 Fastred Mikesell
    > k news 3289 Lucija Core
    > f news 894w Kreindel Shetley
    > Order Confirmation Karl
    > re: Hi my friend Shea Zelma
    >
    >
    > Thats only in my current catch. Most were caught by JMC, but some werent
    > (I can tell the difference because the ones caught by JMC are unread,
    > the ones I marked are read)
    >
    > So, going by your standards, would you have marked these as spam or not?
    > They have innoceous subjects (or non-descript at best) and the names may
    > exist (in most cases) - so how would/could you tell they are spam simply
    > by looking at the subject line and sender?


    I guess I'm just better than you at identifying spam mail by comparing
    subject and senders. Maybe it's because I KNOW everyone who would be
    legitimately sending me E-Mail and I can eliminate anything unfamiliar
    quickly and fast enough without wasting time reading the body of the
    E-Mail. In over twenty years of exchanging E-mails from the old BBS
    systmes through Compuserve and now the Internet I've NEVER had someone
    ask me why I never answered their E-Mail. Experience counts.

    --
    Jaime A. Cruz
    Vice President
    Nassau Wings Motorcycle Club
    http://www.nassauwings.org/
    Vice President
    AMA District 34
    http://www.AMADistrict34.com/
    Pop's Run
    http://www.popsrun.org/

  4. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >
    > How are you? Vanessa Finch
    > Breaking news Margery@mmedia.nsu.ru
    > New message from on MySpace sent on... New MySpace Messsage
    > Change 0.25 Edith Wyatt
    > FWon't you admit we should find a mar... Kiersten
    > Passedc up for the raise..again? Scottie Goldstein
    > re: News Release Geoffry Bond
    > Re: Swain Jennie
    > Fw.1dantu colfaymz
    > Please Respond Mohamed B Meadows
    > Hey Arthur
    > Good news Or solya Waxman
    > wshut fno cotangent Aldo Rankin
    > Good news Pitambar Kempton
    > -
    > Dear Friend Joseph Afolabi
    > Find more information here! Claudine Finley
    > Hi Briana
    > Re:tv 801 good news Malinda Beaupre
    > Your health is important Jasmine Wright
    > her und Trisha Rudolph
    > Re: uT 308 good news Heaven Raposo
    > Re: MA 660 good news Amilcar Thibodaux
    > Re: spooky Pierce Martin
    > Re: tW 134 good news Goffredo Nadeau
    > Re: bi 215 good news Gobind Fazio
    > Call Me Grisham D.
    > Re: Wc 637 good news Tudor Newman
    > Re: nE 588 good news Epona Schade
    > Re: GI 626 good news Buck Harr
    > I miss you Marisa
    > FW: 1dantu okkxyirdf
    > Are you in good health? Graciela Fitzpatrick
    > Christmas Shopping (Ref: snap)Everette Herrington
    > w news 851s Emmy Seger
    > -
    > stell kby unit Terry Moody
    > Dino Alverez Dino Alverez
    > Shipment Notification grsd Frank
    > X news 1451 Fastred Mikesell
    > k news 3289 Lucija Core
    > f news 894w Kreindel Shetley
    > Order Confirmation Karl
    > re: Hi my friend Shea Zelma
    >
    >
    > Thats only in my current catch.



    You really should delete all your old cookies and start again Dan.


    --
    -Adrian
    "A good sermon should be like a woman's skirt:
    short enough to arouse interest,
    but long enough to cover the essentials." (-;
    ~Ronald Knox

  5. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    NoOp wrote: In the interim, can any other "Moz
    > Champions" shed some light on this?
    >
    >





    --
    -Adrian
    "A good sermon should be like a woman's skirt:
    short enough to arouse interest,
    but long enough to cover the essentials." (-;
    ~Ronald Knox

  6. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    NoOp wrote:
    > Geoff Walker wrote:
    >> I have just moved to SM from Mozilla 1.7.12 on MacOS10.4.4.
    >>
    >> Even with Junk Mail Controls set NOT to "Mark messages determined to be
    >> Junk as read", manually marking messages as junk changes the marking to
    >> show them as read. This is not what I want, and occurs even whenever I
    >> use any method of marking messages as junk that does not open the
    >> message. It used to work fine under Mozilla.
    >>
    >> Any suggestions?
    >>
    >> Geoff

    >
    > Unfortunately I think that this is a new "feature" implemented from the
    > Thunderbird users requests:
    >
    > http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=92904
    > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=193625
    > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253234
    >
    > Maybe taking out the
    > mail.server.default.markAsReadOnSpam filters will resolve the problem?
    > I'll give it a try tomorrow. In the interim, can any other "Moz
    > Champions" shed some light on this?
    >
    >


    Just curious here, but if you can tell a message is spam just by seeing
    the subject and sender why don't you want that to be marked as read? Do
    you plan to read it at a later time? To me, the current behavior of
    SeaMonkey makes perfect sense.

    --
    Jeff Beal

  7. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    Jeff Beal wrote:
    > NoOp wrote:
    >> Geoff Walker wrote:
    >>> I have just moved to SM from Mozilla 1.7.12 on MacOS10.4.4.
    >>>
    >>> Even with Junk Mail Controls set NOT to "Mark messages determined to
    >>> be Junk as read", manually marking messages as junk changes the
    >>> marking to show them as read. This is not what I want, and occurs
    >>> even whenever I use any method of marking messages as junk that does
    >>> not open the message. It used to work fine under Mozilla.
    >>>
    >>> Any suggestions?
    >>>
    >>> Geoff

    >>
    >> Unfortunately I think that this is a new "feature" implemented from the
    >> Thunderbird users requests:
    >>
    >> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=92904
    >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=193625
    >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253234
    >>
    >> Maybe taking out the
    >> mail.server.default.markAsReadOnSpam filters will resolve the problem?
    >> I'll give it a try tomorrow. In the interim, can any other "Moz
    >> Champions" shed some light on this?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Just curious here, but if you can tell a message is spam just by seeing
    > the subject and sender why don't you want that to be marked as read? Do
    > you plan to read it at a later time? To me, the current behavior of
    > SeaMonkey makes perfect sense.
    >

    Because if SM is to survive it needs to find an audience with the kind
    of non geek who'll never visit this newsgroup. Read is a term that to
    the average user means "read by them". If it has not been read by them
    or marked by them as read then it should show NOT read.

    And this just aggravates the case where SM marks as SPAM something that
    isn't. When it's marked as "not spam" does it go back to "not read" if
    it has not yet been read by the user?

    David Ross

  8. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    Jeff Beal wrote:
    > NoOp wrote:
    >> Geoff Walker wrote:
    >>> I have just moved to SM from Mozilla 1.7.12 on MacOS10.4.4.
    >>>
    >>> Even with Junk Mail Controls set NOT to "Mark messages determined to be
    >>> Junk as read", manually marking messages as junk changes the marking to
    >>> show them as read. This is not what I want, and occurs even whenever I
    >>> use any method of marking messages as junk that does not open the
    >>> message. It used to work fine under Mozilla.
    >>>
    >>> Any suggestions?
    >>>
    >>> Geoff

    >>
    >> Unfortunately I think that this is a new "feature" implemented from the
    >> Thunderbird users requests:
    >>
    >> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=92904
    >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=193625
    >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253234
    >>
    >> Maybe taking out the
    >> mail.server.default.markAsReadOnSpam filters will resolve the problem?
    >> I'll give it a try tomorrow. In the interim, can any other "Moz
    >> Champions" shed some light on this?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Just curious here, but if you can tell a message is spam just by seeing
    > the subject and sender why don't you want that to be marked as read?


    Because I haven't read it. Why would you want a msg marked as read when
    it actually hasn't been _read_? Unless of course you set the read flag
    yourself?

    Do
    > you plan to read it at a later time?


    Yes. As mentioned in a previous post I do indeed read the spam (offline)
    in order to look at the headers etc. If it gets sent to the Junk folder
    as "read" when it actually hasn't been "read" then it creates additional
    work and is a false indication of whether that msg has actually been
    read by the user.

    To me, the current behavior of
    > SeaMonkey makes perfect sense.
    >


    Would it make sense to also mark a msg as read when you set a Flag even
    though you may not have actually read the msg? Why would you want to
    have the filter mark the msgs as "read" anyway, unless of course you
    actually open the msg and _then_ hit the this is Junk tab? I reviewed
    the forum & bugzilla notes and for the life of me I can't figure out why
    anyone would want to have that happen.

    Keep in mind that what is being discussed is _not_ opening an email and
    then marking it as spam/junk, but instead looking at an email header and
    then clicking the junk column flag. If you look at your column heading
    options you can select a varity of headers; Subject, Flag, Read, Sender,
    Date, Junk, etc. Notice when you set your msg headers so that you view
    the Flag, Junk, Read, a little dot appears under that colum flag. You
    can select the dot to mark a msg as Flag, mark it as read/unread, or
    mark it as Junk.

    In Mozilla 1.7.x when look at a msg header and you tick the Junk
    flag/dot without reading the msg it maintains its read status regardless
    of whether you have the JMC filter set to move the msg to the Junk
    folder or leave it in the current folder. In SM, the msg gets marked as
    read when you tick the flag regardless of what has been set in the JMC
    (Junk Mail Control) filter.

    Have you ever looked at your msg headers and marked a header with a Flag
    without reading the msg? If so, you'd note that the read status of that
    msg doesn't change. What you did was simply set a flag, you didn't read
    the msg.

    Have you ever set up a msg filter so that when you receive emails from a
    certain email address that email automatically goes into a folder that
    you've set up? If not try it. If so you'd note that when you receive
    that email and it is downloaded the msg goes into the folder, the
    read/unread status doesn't change to _read_, and you can actually see
    that you have unread email in that folder that you need to check. Would
    it make perfect sense to instead have the msg diverted to that folder
    and marked as read? No it wouldn't.

    How about if the msg is in your inbox and you don't have time to read
    it; you "Move" it to a special folder (right click or drag & drop);
    would it make sense for the "move" funtion to automatically mark the
    message as read simply because you "had the opportunity to do so"?

    It should not be up to SM to determine whether I, or my users, have
    _read_ the msg simply because I have tagged/flagged a msg as Junk, Flag
    it, or Move it. The only time that SM should make that determination is
    if: 1) I have actually read the msg and have not re-flagged the msg as
    unread, or 2) I have set a filter that allows the msg to be marked as
    read on move.

    I tested Thunderbird & Firefox with my users - the primary reason that I
    immediatly moved them back to Mozilla 1.7.x was due to quirky IE/Outlook
    type "features" like this. That said, overall I am VERY pleased with SM
    1.0, and particularly the ease of installation on a Mozilla 1.7 machines.

  9. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    Jaime A. Cruz, Jr. wrote:
    > Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >> Jaime A. Cruz, Jr. wrote:
    >>> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Um, how can you determine a message IS spam (or Junk) without
    >>>> reading it? If you are manually marking the message as Junk, then
    >>>> you are reading the message, which is about the only real means of
    >>>> knowing whether its spam or not anyway.
    >>>
    >>> If I get an E-Mail from someone named "Nostradamus Phallus" with a
    >>> subject of "Bigger harder erections," well... call me silly but I'm
    >>> going to assume it's spam and I'm going to mark it so without reading
    >>> it. You mean to tell me you can't tell something is spam just by
    >>> looking at the sender and the subject???
    >>>

    >>
    >> Not in all cases. The following spams are all current spams in my Junk
    >> Folder - irregardless of the seemingly innocuous subject lines and
    >> senders
    >>
    >> How are you? Vanessa Finch
    >> Breaking news Margery@mmedia.nsu.ru
    >> New message from on MySpace sent on... New MySpace Messsage
    >> Change 0.25 Edith Wyatt
    >> FWon't you admit we should find a mar... Kiersten
    >> Passedc up for the raise..again? Scottie Goldstein
    >> re: News Release Geoffry Bond
    >> Re: Swain Jennie
    >> Fw.1dantu colfaymz
    >> Please Respond Mohamed B Meadows
    >> Hey Arthur
    >> Good news Or solya Waxman
    >> wshut fno cotangent Aldo Rankin
    >> Good news Pitambar Kempton
    >> -
    >> Dear Friend Joseph Afolabi
    >> Find more information here! Claudine Finley
    >> Hi Briana
    >> Re:tv 801 good news Malinda Beaupre
    >> Your health is important Jasmine Wright
    >> her und Trisha Rudolph
    >> Re: uT 308 good news Heaven Raposo
    >> Re: MA 660 good news Amilcar Thibodaux
    >> Re: spooky Pierce Martin
    >> Re: tW 134 good news Goffredo Nadeau
    >> Re: bi 215 good news Gobind Fazio
    >> Call Me Grisham D.
    >> Re: Wc 637 good news Tudor Newman
    >> Re: nE 588 good news Epona Schade
    >> Re: GI 626 good news Buck Harr
    >> I miss you Marisa
    >> FW: 1dantu okkxyirdf
    >> Are you in good health? Graciela Fitzpatrick
    >> Christmas Shopping (Ref: snap)Everette Herrington
    >> w news 851s Emmy Seger
    >> -
    >> stell kby unit Terry Moody
    >> Dino Alverez Dino Alverez
    >> Shipment Notification grsd Frank
    >> X news 1451 Fastred Mikesell
    >> k news 3289 Lucija Core
    >> f news 894w Kreindel Shetley
    >> Order Confirmation Karl
    >> re: Hi my friend Shea Zelma
    >>
    >>
    >> Thats only in my current catch. Most were caught by JMC, but some
    >> werent (I can tell the difference because the ones caught by JMC are
    >> unread, the ones I marked are read)
    >>
    >> So, going by your standards, would you have marked these as spam or
    >> not? They have innoceous subjects (or non-descript at best) and the
    >> names may exist (in most cases) - so how would/could you tell they are
    >> spam simply by looking at the subject line and sender?

    >
    > I guess I'm just better than you at identifying spam mail by comparing
    > subject and senders. Maybe it's because I KNOW everyone who would be
    > legitimately sending me E-Mail and I can eliminate anything unfamiliar
    > quickly and fast enough without wasting time reading the body of the
    > E-Mail. In over twenty years of exchanging E-mails from the old BBS
    > systmes through Compuserve and now the Internet I've NEVER had someone
    > ask me why I never answered their E-Mail. Experience counts.
    >


    Quite limited in your list of friends eh

    Take my email for example. I could get an email from you, or any other
    user of this group. Some just want to say something private, others
    think an email reply as well as a newsgroup reply is warranted, or they
    hit the wrong button. So, essentially, my 'LIST' of who is 'good' is
    quite astronomical.

    I also worked for a Major telecommunications business, doing online
    support, and many of their customers emailed me directly as well, so
    thats a user base of over 2 million possible email addresses (tho I
    doubt more than a few hundred thousand of them emailed me at one time or
    another)

    But, you didnt answer my question, did you? I gave you an extant list of
    actual subjects and senders, can you pick the ones that are spam? You
    say you are good, so go ahead, pick em!

  10. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    Adrian (down under) wrote:
    > Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >>
    >> How are you? Vanessa Finch
    >> Breaking news Margery@mmedia.nsu.ru
    >> New message from on MySpace sent on... New MySpace Messsage
    >> Change 0.25 Edith Wyatt
    >> FWon't you admit we should find a mar... Kiersten
    >> Passedc up for the raise..again? Scottie Goldstein
    >> re: News Release Geoffry Bond
    >> Re: Swain Jennie
    >> Fw.1dantu colfaymz
    >> Please Respond Mohamed B Meadows
    >> Hey Arthur
    >> Good news Or solya Waxman
    >> wshut fno cotangent Aldo Rankin
    >> Good news Pitambar Kempton
    >> -
    >> Dear Friend Joseph Afolabi
    >> Find more information here! Claudine Finley
    >> Hi Briana
    >> Re:tv 801 good news Malinda Beaupre
    >> Your health is important Jasmine Wright
    >> her und Trisha Rudolph
    >> Re: uT 308 good news Heaven Raposo
    >> Re: MA 660 good news Amilcar Thibodaux
    >> Re: spooky Pierce Martin
    >> Re: tW 134 good news Goffredo Nadeau
    >> Re: bi 215 good news Gobind Fazio
    >> Call Me Grisham D.
    >> Re: Wc 637 good news Tudor Newman
    >> Re: nE 588 good news Epona Schade
    >> Re: GI 626 good news Buck Harr
    >> I miss you Marisa
    >> FW: 1dantu okkxyirdf
    >> Are you in good health? Graciela Fitzpatrick
    >> Christmas Shopping (Ref: snap)Everette Herrington
    >> w news 851s Emmy Seger
    >> -
    >> stell kby unit Terry Moody
    >> Dino Alverez Dino Alverez
    >> Shipment Notification grsd Frank
    >> X news 1451 Fastred Mikesell
    >> k news 3289 Lucija Core
    >> f news 894w Kreindel Shetley
    >> Order Confirmation Karl
    >> re: Hi my friend Shea Zelma
    >>
    >>
    >> Thats only in my current catch.

    >
    >
    > You really should delete all your old cookies and start again Dan.
    >
    >


    What the heck does cookies have to do with this? No relation whatso-ever.

    Besides, some of em could be peanut-butter cookies! No way am I deleting
    those!

  11. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    DLR wrote:
    > Jeff Beal wrote:
    >> NoOp wrote:
    >>> Geoff Walker wrote:
    >>>> I have just moved to SM from Mozilla 1.7.12 on MacOS10.4.4.
    >>>>
    >>>> Even with Junk Mail Controls set NOT to "Mark messages determined to
    >>>> be Junk as read", manually marking messages as junk changes the
    >>>> marking to show them as read. This is not what I want, and occurs
    >>>> even whenever I use any method of marking messages as junk that does
    >>>> not open the message. It used to work fine under Mozilla.
    >>>>
    >>>> Any suggestions?
    >>>>
    >>>> Geoff
    >>>
    >>> Unfortunately I think that this is a new "feature" implemented from the
    >>> Thunderbird users requests:
    >>>
    >>> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=92904
    >>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=193625
    >>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253234
    >>>
    >>> Maybe taking out the
    >>> mail.server.default.markAsReadOnSpam filters will resolve the problem?
    >>> I'll give it a try tomorrow. In the interim, can any other "Moz
    >>> Champions" shed some light on this?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Just curious here, but if you can tell a message is spam just by
    >> seeing the subject and sender why don't you want that to be marked as
    >> read? Do you plan to read it at a later time? To me, the current
    >> behavior of SeaMonkey makes perfect sense.
    >>

    > Because if SM is to survive it needs to find an audience with the kind
    > of non geek who'll never visit this newsgroup. Read is a term that to
    > the average user means "read by them". If it has not been read by them
    > or marked by them as read then it should show NOT read.
    >
    > And this just aggravates the case where SM marks as SPAM something that
    > isn't. When it's marked as "not spam" does it go back to "not read" if
    > it has not yet been read by the user?
    >
    > David Ross


    Truth be told, most users dont even read their spam catches, so they
    wont even notice it. All they care is that its marked junk so they dont
    have to see it.

    And you miss the point.
    IF SM marks a message as spam by itself, it is NOT marked read (unless
    the user selects that), it is left as unread!
    What the issue here is, when the USER marks a message as junk, then it
    is marked read as well.

    Take a look in YOUR Junk folder (or whereever you have JMC set to cache
    spam). ANY message that SM catches by itself, will still be unread
    (unless of course you have told JMC to mark them as read).

    SM isnt changing anything EXCEPT in the case where YOU mark the message
    as spam. So blaming SM for this is quite untoward. YOU (not SM) marked
    the message as spam, the message is marked read. If SM marked the
    message as spam, then it will remain unread unless of course you have
    told JMC to do otherwise.

    YOU mark a message as spam, its marked read. Are you now going to go
    back and READ the message because it might NOT be spam? Then why did you
    mark it as spam in the first place?

    Once again. IF SeaMonkey catches a spam with JMC, it is NOT marked read
    (unless you have told JMC to do so), it is left as UNREAD. ONLY in the
    case where YOU mark a message as spam is the status changed to read from
    unread.

  12. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:

    [SNIP]
    >
    > Truth be told, most users dont even read their spam catches, so they
    > wont even notice it.


    I read mine
    [SNIP]

    --
    Time for a change

  13. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    NoOp wrote:
    > Jeff Beal wrote:
    >> NoOp wrote:
    >>> Geoff Walker wrote:
    >>>> I have just moved to SM from Mozilla 1.7.12 on MacOS10.4.4.
    >>>>
    >>>> Even with Junk Mail Controls set NOT to "Mark messages determined to be
    >>>> Junk as read", manually marking messages as junk changes the marking to
    >>>> show them as read. This is not what I want, and occurs even whenever I
    >>>> use any method of marking messages as junk that does not open the
    >>>> message. It used to work fine under Mozilla.
    >>>>
    >>>> Any suggestions?
    >>>>
    >>>> Geoff
    >>> Unfortunately I think that this is a new "feature" implemented from the
    >>> Thunderbird users requests:
    >>>
    >>> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=92904
    >>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=193625
    >>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253234
    >>>
    >>> Maybe taking out the
    >>> mail.server.default.markAsReadOnSpam filters will resolve the problem?
    >>> I'll give it a try tomorrow. In the interim, can any other "Moz
    >>> Champions" shed some light on this?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Just curious here, but if you can tell a message is spam just by seeing
    >> the subject and sender why don't you want that to be marked as read?

    >
    > Because I haven't read it. Why would you want a msg marked as read when
    > it actually hasn't been _read_? Unless of course you set the read flag
    > yourself?


    Because it is junk, I know it is junk, and I don't _want_ to read it.
    There are other types of mail that I receive that I also don't want to
    be bothered about; I have two or three filters that mark incoming mail
    as read. SeaMonkey (and I expect every other email system out there)
    also has the feature to mark mail that you clearly _have_ read as "Not
    Read". Does this bother you? Probably not.

    >
    > Do
    >> you plan to read it at a later time?

    >
    > Yes. As mentioned in a previous post I do indeed read the spam (offline)
    > in order to look at the headers etc. If it gets sent to the Junk folder
    > as "read" when it actually hasn't been "read" then it creates additional
    > work and is a false indication of whether that msg has actually been
    > read by the user.
    >
    > To me, the current behavior of
    >> SeaMonkey makes perfect sense.
    >>

    >
    > Would it make sense to also mark a msg as read when you set a Flag even
    > though you may not have actually read the msg? Why would you want to
    > have the filter mark the msgs as "read" anyway, unless of course you
    > actually open the msg and _then_ hit the this is Junk tab? I reviewed
    > the forum & bugzilla notes and for the life of me I can't figure out why
    > anyone would want to have that happen.


    This is a completely invalid comparison. You typically flag mail that
    you think is _more_ important than your average email; you junk mail
    that you never even wanted. The mail that I mark as junk is mail that I
    didn't want in the first place.

    >
    > Keep in mind that what is being discussed is _not_ opening an email and
    > then marking it as spam/junk, but instead looking at an email header and
    > then clicking the junk column flag. If you look at your column heading
    > options you can select a varity of headers; Subject, Flag, Read, Sender,
    > Date, Junk, etc. Notice when you set your msg headers so that you view
    > the Flag, Junk, Read, a little dot appears under that colum flag. You
    > can select the dot to mark a msg as Flag, mark it as read/unread, or
    > mark it as Junk.


    I know exactly what is being discussed. I know that you have not
    technically read the mail. I still don't understand why you would want to.

    >
    > In Mozilla 1.7.x when look at a msg header and you tick the Junk
    > flag/dot without reading the msg it maintains its read status regardless
    > of whether you have the JMC filter set to move the msg to the Junk
    > folder or leave it in the current folder. In SM, the msg gets marked as
    > read when you tick the flag regardless of what has been set in the JMC
    > (Junk Mail Control) filter.
    >
    > Have you ever looked at your msg headers and marked a header with a Flag
    > without reading the msg? If so, you'd note that the read status of that
    > msg doesn't change. What you did was simply set a flag, you didn't read
    > the msg.
    >
    > Have you ever set up a msg filter so that when you receive emails from a
    > certain email address that email automatically goes into a folder that
    > you've set up? If not try it. If so you'd note that when you receive
    > that email and it is downloaded the msg goes into the folder, the
    > read/unread status doesn't change to _read_, and you can actually see
    > that you have unread email in that folder that you need to check. Would
    > it make perfect sense to instead have the msg diverted to that folder
    > and marked as read? No it wouldn't.
    >
    > How about if the msg is in your inbox and you don't have time to read
    > it; you "Move" it to a special folder (right click or drag & drop);
    > would it make sense for the "move" funtion to automatically mark the
    > message as read simply because you "had the opportunity to do so"?


    Again, none of these actions carry with them the implicit idea that you
    don't want the message. To most people, Junk mail carries with it that
    concept. (If I want the message, it's not junk.)

    > It should not be up to SM to determine whether I, or my users, have
    > _read_ the msg simply because I have tagged/flagged a msg as Junk, Flag
    > it, or Move it. The only time that SM should make that determination is
    > if: 1) I have actually read the msg and have not re-flagged the msg as
    > unread, or 2) I have set a filter that allows the msg to be marked as
    > read on move.
    >
    > I tested Thunderbird & Firefox with my users - the primary reason that I
    > immediatly moved them back to Mozilla 1.7.x was due to quirky IE/Outlook
    > type "features" like this. That said, overall I am VERY pleased with SM
    > 1.0, and particularly the ease of installation on a Mozilla 1.7 machines.


  14. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    gwtc wrote:
    > Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    >
    > [SNIP]
    >>
    >> Truth be told, most users dont even read their spam catches, so they
    >> wont even notice it.

    >
    > I read mine
    > [SNIP]
    >


    I read mine, after all I report em all But most users dont.

  15. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
    > Adrian (down under) wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> You really should delete all your old cookies and start again Dan.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > What the heck does cookies have to do with this? No relation whatso-ever.
    >
    > Besides, some of em could be peanut-butter cookies! No way am I
    > deleting those!


    Sorry about that Champ! :-[

    --
    -Adrian


  16. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    I just rad the thread, so i reply kind of late. But as no one has
    mentioned it, I thought it might be of interest.

    On 02/11/2006 01:40 AM Geoff Walker wrote:

    > Any suggestions?


    Bug 322978

    OJ
    --
    Ducttape is like the Force: It has a light side and a dark side, and
    it holds the universe together.

  17. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    In article ,
    Johannes Kastl wrote:

    > I just rad the thread, so i reply kind of late. But as no one has
    > mentioned it, I thought it might be of interest.
    >
    > On 02/11/2006 01:40 AM Geoff Walker wrote:
    >
    > > Any suggestions?

    >
    > Bug 322978
    >
    > OJ


    Thank you, Johannes!

    Geoff

  18. Re: Junk Mail Controls mistakenly marking messages as read

    On 27-02-2006 17:00 CET, Johannes Kastl composed this enchanting statement:
    > I just rad the thread, so i reply kind of late. But as no one has
    > mentioned it, I thought it might be of interest.
    >
    > On 02/11/2006 01:40 AM Geoff Walker wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Any suggestions?
    >>

    >
    > Bug 322978
    >
    > OJ
    >

    , which is a duplicate of
    :-)

    --
    Kind regards,

    Melchert

    MacOS 10.3.9/Firefox 1.5/Thunderbird 1.5

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2