"Stop Processing" Filter Action? (was Re: [Evolution] Are the filters really working right?)

[Jim Meyer <purp selequa com>]

Howdy!

On Wed, 2001-11-21 at 07:54, Janus Christensen wrote:
> On Wed, 2001-11-21 at 16:08, Richard Bellavance wrote:
>
> > If I understand correctly, this is intended behaviour.  There is a
> > filter action named "Stop processing" to do just that.
>
> This seems to be the intended behaviour. All the rules are applied in
> the order they are listed in the Filters window, unless one of them
> explicitly stops the rule processing.

This is indeed true; it explains why I was getting double messages from
some list filters which use the "Move" action when the message also
matched with another filter which *also* uses "Move".

It feels like an odd choice to require explicit "stop processing" as it
seems the default for most other filtering packages is to consider a
"move" as containing an implicit "stop". It also seems to create more
work if you want filters to behave as they have in other packages, e.g.
every filter now requires an explicit "stop" be added to avoid multiple
matching syndrome.

Could a "Continue processing" action be added to allow fall-through for
those filters which require it? That plus a choice of defaults would let
us have it both ways. =]

--j, who tries to please most of the people most of the time.
-- 
Jim Meyer, Geek At Large                              purp selequa com