Rule incorrectly claims to apply to all messages

  • Thread starter Thread starter C M Shaw
  • Start date Start date
C

C M Shaw

I am using OutlookXP on Windows2000. I would like to create a rule
which acts on incoming messages based on words in the recipient's
address and then stops processing rules on messages which match.
However, when I create such a rule, I am shown the following warning
message:

The client rule has a condition that applies to all messages. The
action 'stop processing more rules' will prevent all remaining server
rules from being carried out. Are you sure this is what you want to
do?

Sure enough, if I go ahead and apply that rule, no client rules after
it are carried out on any messages. (I'm not sure why it refers to
"server rules" in the message.)

I can't make this the last rule, as was suggested a few months ago in
this newsgroup. I need this rule to be applied before other rules,
because my final rule is a notification that a message which matches
no rules has arrived.

Is this a bug in the Outlook rules processor? Should I be submitting
a report to Microsoft?

--CM Shaw
 
Hi C M Shaw,

Thank you for the posting.

As you indicated when you create a rule which acts on incoming messages
based on words in the recipient's address and then stops processing rules
on messages which match, you received message "stop processing more rules"
if you apply that rule, no client rules after it are carried out on any
messages. You need this rule to be applied before other rules.

Once the "stop processing more rules" is processed, the following rules
won't apply any more. This is inevitable. To avoid this, we suggest you
configure exceptions to the following rules to meet this creteria. For
example, you can select except with specific words in the recipient
address. To meet the requirement, you may need to reconfigure the rules
especially the exception list and actions. Different rule conbination can
meet the same requirement. Therefore, the rule design and configure is
very important to avoid possible conflict.

In order to better understand this issue and to analysis for you, please
describ your requirement and the situation exactly. If you would like, you
can export your rules one by one and send them to us so that we can test
for you from our side. You can send to the following email address
cherryq@microsoft,com

Hope the above information and suggestion helps and answers your question.
If anything is unclear or if there is anything further we can help you with
from our side, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Cherry Qian
MCSE2000, MCSA2000, MCDBA2000
Microsoft Partner Online Support


Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security

====================================================
When responding to posts, please Reply to Group via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
====================================================
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
Once the "stop processing more rules" is processed, the following rules
won't apply any more. This is inevitable.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the "stop processing more rules" command only be applied on
messages which match the criteria, ie, which have the specified string
in the recipient's address? I've used this command with other rules
without problem -- for example, I have a rule which moves messages
from a particular email address into a folder and then stops
processing more rules, and it does not interfere with messages from
other email addresses.
In order to better understand this issue and to analysis for you, please
describ your requirement and the situation exactly.
Click to expand...

The rule in question is this:

Apply this rule after the message arrives
with [-] in the recipient's address
move it to the [-] folder
except if my name is in the To or Cc box
or except if the subject contains [-]
or except if sender is in [-] Address Book
stop processing more rules

and my final rule is this:

Apply this rule after the message arrives
notify me using [-]

My final rule should *not* be run when a message with the specified
text in the recipient's address arrives. My final rule *should* be
run when a message *without* the specified text arrives.

Thank you for responding!

CM Shaw
 
Hi CM Shaw,

Thank you for the posting again. Based on your description, the rule
settings are a little bit complex.

In order to test for you on our side and find the solution for you, would
you please export your rules one by one and send to us so that we can try
to produce this issue and perform further research and testing? Thus we
can try to find possible solution to meet your specific requirement.

You can export your rules and then send to this email address:
(e-mail address removed). We will perform further research and testing upon
receiving the information.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation on this. If anything is
unclear or if there is anything further we can help you with from our side,
please let me know.

Sincerely,

Cherry Qian
MCSE2000, MCSA2000, MCDBA2000
Microsoft Partner Online Support


Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security

====================================================
When responding to posts, please Reply to Group via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
====================================================
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
In order to test for you on our side and find the solution for you, would
you please export your rules one by one and send to us so that we can try
to produce this issue and perform further research and testing?
Click to expand...

Thank you very much. I have sent the exported rules by email.

--CM Shaw
 
Hello,

I am experiencing similar problems to you, whereby if I have a condition
in my rules relating to recipient address (e.g. "with xyz in the recipient's
address") and with 'stop processing more rules' then I get the message:

"The client rule has a condition that applies to all messages. The
action 'stop processing more rules' will prevent all remaining server
rules from being carried out. Are you sure this is what you want to
do?"

I haven't really come up with an explanation other than perhaps the
recipient address rule is meant to be used only for outgoing mails (on
the basis that the recipient of incoming mails will be you)?

I also frustratingly have the same effect when I use the 'Sender is in
xyz Address Book' rule.

Anyone with any answers would earn many thanks!
 
Holger said:
I haven't really come up with an explanation other than perhaps the
recipient address rule is meant to be used only for outgoing mails (on
the basis that the recipient of incoming mails will be you)?
Click to expand...

Maybe -- are you doing the same thing I'm doing, though, and trying to
sort mail based on which of your several email addresses it was sent
to? This certainly looked like a sorting method for that....
I also frustratingly have the same effect when I use the 'Sender is in
xyz Address Book' rule.
Click to expand...

So am I, now that I test it.
Anyone with any answers would earn many thanks!
Click to expand...

Sadly, I have no answers, but I can report that the "sent to" and
"sent from" pieces of the rule works correctly, so if you're willing
to add the whole address book one person at a time (and update the
rule when you add new people to it) you can get a workaround.
Hopefully *someone* has recognized this bug and is working to fix it!

CM Shaw
 
Hi CM Shaw,

Thank you for the posting again.

As you described, the "sent to" and "sent from" pieces of the rule works
correctly and you can workaround by adding the whole address book one
person at a time. based on the troubleshooting results, we can conclude
the main rule policy works and this issue can be somehow related to the
exception of the address book.

We performed further research and testing on this issue. We noticed this
problem can sometimes occurs when the exception in the rule is configured
with a user that is contained in the Global Address List (GAL). This
problem can occur if the following conditions are true:

- You create a rule in Outlook.
- You specify the GAL as an Address Book exception to the rule.

Regarding this issue, we suggest you use the following address book instead:

- Outlook Address Book
- Contacts

By using alternative address book, we can correct and prevent possible
issue to workaround this situation.

By the way, I have sent a patch to your email address
(e-mail address removed) for you to test. If you still want to persist in
this, you can have a try.

Hope the above information and suggestion helps and answers your question.
If anything is unclear or if there is anything further we can help you with
from our side, please let me know.


Sincerely,

Cherry Qian
MCSE2000, MCSA2000, MCDBA2000
Microsoft Partner Online Support


Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security

====================================================
When responding to posts, please Reply to Group via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
====================================================
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
Back
Top