I just noticed on Netscape 4.7 that I have to set message filters separately for every group. That means I'm setting the same filters for all the groups over and over again. I would like a global message filter that affects all groups on all severs. This would help to get rid of spam a lot. Thanks!

I think this is supposed to be a MailNews bug, not a Grendel bug. Grendel is a java mail/news reader, which has almost nothing to do with the mail/news reader mozilla has in it's browser.

enhancement. cc: laurel.

David, is this a dup?

not that I know of, but my guess is that this is referrring to news filters. It's eminently doable - we'd just append the per newsgroup filter list to the default filters for the news server when evaluating the new headers for a newsgroup.

And we'd need some UI to control it. Is M20 correct then?

the ui is simply that when specifying filters for a newsgroup, you also get to specify a set of filters for a news server (i.e., the news server is in the drop down list of newsgroups.) M20 because it's an enhancement that we won't do in all likelihood.

I'm noticing on mozilla 0.9.4 that it is ridiculously tedious to transfer many (20+) filters, each with several clauses, to apply to a new email address. There is no way to copy or move them, nor even to have two filter editor windows up to copy them manually. Global filtering could eliminate the need to copy them. However, there may be interaction with the "leave message on server, delete when deleted locally" feature. A global filter would have one destination folder, but I'd guess that that folder would have to know from which inbox each message came in order to delete it when the time came. (I assume it keeps track of this only on a folder-wide basis, not on a per-message basis, and this is why folders are associated with inboxes). Suggest bugzilla entry changes: COmponent: Filtering Platform: All OS: All

If this bug is talking about news filters (which seems to have been suggested), it depends on bug 17483

Reporter's new email is: croberts@gilsongfx.com.

*** Bug 52937 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 129883 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Pls change summary to "Would like global news message filter".

*** Bug 161302 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 164552 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 179733 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 184661 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 185185 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Are there any plans to implement a global message filter in the near future or is this bug dead? The current behaviour is very impractical, because most rules (especially for newsgroups) are significant for more than one newsgroup or account.

This must not be taken as only for news messages. I find this very irritating in mail reading. You have marked bug 52937 as a duplicate of this one. Bug 52937 was specifically about mail filters. So either this bug is also, or 52937 should not be marked dup.

as far as I was concerned in reporting/commenting on this subject, this is not relivant to news groups (although perhaps it should be). The UI error is that filters in Moz1.? are set up on mail accounts one at a time. Therefore if I have three accounts, I have to set up three sets of spam filters and add the same sixteen terms several times. This is known as a pain. Thanks for reading

Whenever I create a global message filter (by clicking on "Create message filters" in the mail start page of the server) this filter dissappears after restarting Mozilla. Before I restart this filter even works with every newsgroup within this server. Using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210

Regarding comment #21: is this even an intended function? AFAIK, this feature hasn't been implemented yet, which is probably why the "global filter" that he mentions goes into the bit bucket. Anyway, if this *was* supposed to work, can we reclassify this bug from a P5 Enhancement request to a P2 Bug? I really need a global andkonDOTcom filter! Please!

*** Bug 237049 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 238608 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Is this bug ever going to be addressed.... It is annoying... bloody annoying!!! I have looked through the history and two issues are outstanding... It is not clear if the bug is related to news or mail. Some people have killed mail bugs referenced as this bug without posting comments to this discussion to clarify the matter.... It should be addressed to both. It is quite clearly the same usability issue. Secondly there is no clarity on how the bug should be tackled... Let me propose the following. Looking at how this should work in terms of UI and usability then one shold be able to have a set of filters which are created outside of the domain of the mailbox. Once more mail/news accounts are created it becomes necessary to de-couple the mail account - filter association. Currenntly [moz 1.7.2] we have drop down box accounts - columned box with filters - drop down list with folders - In this order mail account determines filters and filters can then be run on one and only one folder... [again limiting] Filters should be the first box. A user can then have a checkbox list where accounts are specified. [and also let's be realistic here most users, 99.99% , only have between 1-5 mail or news accounts]. A scrollable box could be put here but only when the limit for the interface has been exceeded... someone with >x accounts. I don't know how mozilla works this in terms of data modelling but I assume there is a mini database behind there. This would result in 'a filter can be given an account list id' and 'an account list is created for each filter'. This relation becuase some filters a user may only wish to run on private and work accounts others are run on different sets of accounts. The news and mail filters should also be seperate however it would be nice to have a copy and paste feature. Maybe as an extra contextual button in the group with. [new] [edit] [delete] [help] [nove up] [move down] [run now] The button would then probably have the following states... STATE BUTTON STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- no filter selected and no filter in the clipboard - copy disabled no filter selected and a filter in the clipboard - paste enabled a filter selected and a filter in the clipboard - copy enabled a filter selected and no filter in the clipboard - copy enabled

C'mon, Keith. It's only been four years now -- give them some time!

*** Bug 294632 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 302131 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 355909 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

(In reply to comment #25) > Is this bug ever going to be addressed.... It is annoying... bloody annoying!!! I just saw that one RFE I filed got linked to this as duplicate (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34973#c30). Here's my take on this. Filters are rules which the user wants to be applied on emails. Thus, from an overview perspective, the user should be allowed to create filters/rules and provided the following options: [i] a drop down of existing accounts to which this filter should be linked (do we allow a single instance of a filter to multiple accounts ? Don't know since that usage model does not appear rational) [ii] the folder on which the filter should operate upon [iii] the fields on which filter/rule should operate on [iv] the action ie destination filter for the action taken This would possibly mean that the MessageRules dialog box would be required to be redesigned

Alex in comment #20: > as far as I was concerned in reporting/commenting on this subject, this is not > relivant to news groups (although perhaps it should be). Was it determined this bug is about both mail and news? Would bug 129883 deliver what is needed?

Why isn't this implemented similarly to Apple's Mail? By default all filters are global and you can narrow the filter scope by adding extra parameters. So the extra parameters could specify the target folder or account. With this model, filters would automatically be transferable from one account to another which is currently impossible to do. Come on people, I can't believe this thing has been around since 2000, what the heck is going on?

(In reply to Miguel D'Amico from comment #33) > Why isn't this implemented similarly to Apple's Mail? By default all filters > are global and you can narrow the filter scope by adding extra parameters. > So the extra parameters could specify the target folder or account. One of biggest reasons is; - filter rules is currently saved in "per account msgFilterRules.dat file". - changing of this design/implementation is very tough work. To improve, at least following works are needed. (1) Design/implementation change of "repository of message filter rules". (2) Filter back-end changes according to change of (1). (3) Filter related UI changes/enhancements according to change of (1) and (2). (4) Converter from current msgFilterRules.dat to new repository, and vice versa, for migration. attachment 604268 [details] (attached to bug 151226 comment #11) is an idea of (1), SQLite DB version of msgFilterRules.dat, for "global filter rules", "per folder filter rules", "increased degrees of freedom in filter definition/maintenance" etc. I think the idea is similar to Apple Mail's concept, even though never same. If (1) and (2) will be implemented, (2) can be postponed, because transation/conversion from SQLite DB data or json data to current msgFilterRuls.dat is simple/easy job as far as DB/Object is well designed.

(In reply to Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay from comment #31) Here's my take on > this. Filters are rules which the user wants to be applied on emails. Thus, > from an overview perspective, the user should be allowed to create > filters/rules and provided the following options: > > [i] a drop down of existing accounts to which this filter should be linked > (do we allow a single instance of a filter to multiple accounts ? Don't know > since that usage model does not appear rational) > [ii] the folder on which the filter should operate upon > [iii] the fields on which filter/rule should operate on > [iv] the action ie destination filter for the action taken > > This would possibly mean that the MessageRules dialog box would be required > to be redesigned I like this. this would work very nicely for me...I have many imap/pop accounts and I want to merge into one folder (including sent mail/deleted etc) for ease of reading...this would allow me to define a single filter for all messages incoming and outgoing...life would be sweet!