I can understand your need but I would still suggest you would revise your
sorting by rules only approach. Within a project folder you can easily find
all emails from a certain contact by the option Group By Contact or create a
filtered view to show only messages from a specific contact. This will also
allow you to maintain an overview of all mail related to that project. This
would already drastically decrease the amount of rules required.
FYI: The increase of the rules limit to 256KB will allow you to create >400
"move to folder" rules.
If you want to bypass Exchange server side storage altogether than you can
also connect to the Exchange server by the POP3 protocol. Contact your mail
admin for more info on this.
--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.howto-outlook.com/
Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more
http://www.msoutlook.info/
Real World Questions, Real World Answers
-----
"yankeeDDL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:35E0AC73-42D1-4BA2-BA78-(E-Mail Removed)...
> It's a bit a matter of preference and a bit a matter of need.
> I work on several projects at the same time (say, 10) and with different
> groups (say, 10) and I have some "personal" contacts with which I
> communicate
> through my work email (say , 10).
> So that alone would be enough to almost reach the limit.
> I find it very helpful, however, to have a 2nd level filtering which is
> "almost" people based.
> So in a project I would have sub folders with key-people involved and one
> "generic" folder with everything else.
> Say that this happens 4 times on each project/group and we're already at
> 20*4+10 = 90.
> There's also a whole set of emails that I like to have filtered in a
> "different way"; e.g.: emails related to my travel/bookings, memos,
> documents, stocks, taxes, notifications/alerts ...
> All in all, in 1 year I easily pass 200 rules.
> It is true that I could probably go back and trim/optimize some of them to
> bring the number down to < 200 but that would take time which I don't want
> to
> spend on organizing rules.
> It has worked well for me for years, until Exchange arrived. I like the
> concept. I understand the limitation of 32KB, BUT, my opinion, it is
> completely unacceptable that the number of rules is limited so
> dramatically.
> I have over 35K emails in my inbox, scattered over >100 folders. A search
> across all of them would take hours. Having 2~3 levels makes the search
> extremely more efficient and, hardly necessary.
> Another major complaint is that we should be reading massive warnings:
> "Hey
> you, if you think of using Exchange and you have more than 30 rules, think
> twice!"
>
> Finally: I see no technical reason why a user should not be able to
> download
> all (or most) emails locally and then do whatever he pleases with them. I
> would consider this a basic feature of a decent email server/client. I
> considered it obvious since "pine" on Unix, 15 years ago. It was
> disappointing to see that it is not at all the case.
>
> "Roady [MVP]" wrote:
>
>> Just curious; why do you need so many rules in the first place?
>>
>> In pretty much all my consulting I did I've been able to create an
>> efficient
>> way of organizing mail with less than 10 rules and using a combination of
>> rules, categories, custom views and Search Folders.
>>
>>
Similar Threads
