On 10 Nov 2020, at 16:06, Martin S Taylor wrote:
The workaround I use is to define a third smart (dummy) mailbox, C.
Then:
C is defined to contain everything which meets [set of other
conditions]
A is defined to contain messages which are in *any* of the mailboxes:
B or C.
Thanks, Martin! (
On 11 Nov 2020, at 19:10, Bill Cole wrote:
Create mailbox C with all of those other conditions.
Create mailbox A which includes all messages in B and all in C, i.e.
with B and C as sources and no conditions.
That's what I just said!
MST
___
mai
On 10 Nov 2020, at 15:43, Shoshanna Green wrote:
Setting B as a source mailbox for A would mean that A's conditions
would be applied to messages in B and the messages that meet them
would be included in A, but messages in B that do not meet them
wouldn't be. What I want is to define A with a n
Shoshanna:
On 10 Nov 2020, at 20:43, Shoshanna Green wrote:
What I want is to define A with a nonexclusive OR: A's conditions need
to be along the lines of
ANY OF:
- is contained in B
- [set of other conditions]
I've had this problem, too, and it is awkward, isn't it? You'd think you
cou
Setting B as a source mailbox for A would mean that A's conditions would
be applied to messages in B and the messages that meet them would be
included in A, but messages in B that do not meet them wouldn't be. What
I want is to define A with a nonexclusive OR: A's conditions need to be
along th
What stops you from setting mailbox B as the source for mailbox A?
If you do that, then the conditions you set for A apply only to mails
that are shown in B.
You can have multiple source mailboxes for smart mailboxes, those being
either true mailboxes, combo mailboxes or smart mailboxes.
On 10
