search for: ewxample

...ot always work if foo is not in both > > will this solve it ? That is helpful, but I still do not see how to test for "email has anndress other than this address". If I simply say the address does not contain the address, then to will not match any mail that is sent to both foo at ewxample.com AND to another unknown email. -- 'I'm not a thief, madam. But if I were, I would be the kind that steals fire from the gods.' 'We've already got fire.' 'There must be an upgrade by now.'

...not in both >>> >>> will this solve it ? >> That is helpful, but I still do not see how to test for "email has anndress other than this address". If I simply say the address does not contain the address, then to will not match any mail that is sent to both foo at ewxample.com AND to another unknown email. > > Maybe you could use the ":count" match from the "relational" extension to check whether more than one address is contained in a header field when the recipient address is already present. This doesn't address the weird situation w...

...ork if foo is not in both >> >> will this solve it ? > That is helpful, but I still do not see how to test for "email has anndress other than this address". If I simply say the address does not contain the address, then to will not match any mail that is sent to both foo at ewxample.com AND to another unknown email. Maybe you could use the ":count" match from the "relational" extension to check whether more than one address is contained in a header field when the recipient address is already present. This doesn't address the weird situation where th...

I an trying to write a sieve action that will take mail that is addressed to a user only it is filed in a mailbox (e.g. "Direct") if it is to the email AND to any other email address, then file it in a mailbox named, e.g. "Cc". And if the mail is not addressed to the user at all, sieve does nothing with it. Message 1: to foo at example.com => Direct Message 2: to/cc foo at