Does anyone know how to automatically mark junk emails as read in Outlook 2007?

I don't like how the folder fills up and shows all the messages in there. I
notice that there's a utility/plug-in called Auto Read 2.0 that does this for
Outlook 97 through 2003, but they don't have a version for 2007. Seems like
it should be a simple rule filter operation, but I haven't been able to
figure it out.

Why mark them at all? I simply right click and empty that darned folder. I tend to not keep trash around for more than a day.

--�
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All
unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without
reading.

After furious head scratching, prd asked:

| Does anyone know how to automatically mark junk emails as read in
| Outlook 2007?
|
| I don't like how the folder fills up and shows all the messages in
| there. I notice that there's a utility/plug-in called Auto Read 2.0
| that does this for Outlook 97 through 2003, but they don't have a
| version for 2007. Seems like
| it should be a simple rule filter operation, but I haven't been able
| to
| figure it out.

Occasionally important emails get routed to that folder, and I like to be
able to scan it every other day or so... then I right click and empty it.

"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" wrote:

> Why mark them at all? I simply right click and empty that darned folder. I tend to not keep trash around for more than a day.
>
> --�
> Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
>
> Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All
> unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without
> reading.
>
> After furious head scratching, prd asked:
>
> | Does anyone know how to automatically mark junk emails as read in
> | Outlook 2007?
> |
> | I don't like how the folder fills up and shows all the messages in
> | there. I notice that there's a utility/plug-in called Auto Read 2.0
> | that does this for Outlook 97 through 2003, but they don't have a
> | version for 2007. Seems like
> | it should be a simple rule filter operation, but I haven't been able
> | to
> | figure it out.
>