More flexibility and funcitonability with rules please


It would be great if we could create more complex rules, such as including “any one of” in the ‘from’ to capture different correspondents in one rule. It would also be good if instead of a whole email address, we could include a domain, e.g. *

I find I have to create two rules quite often - one for mail from someone and another to someone.

Also, It would be fantastic if there were a way of right-clicking on an email or contact or email address and have an option to ‘create a rule from’ whatever we’ve clicked.


The option is already OR. So just add the addresses and if any one of them match, the Rule will be applied.

When adding the address, you can select this option from the dropdown.

That option is there for messages you receive. Just right-click on the sender’s address.

thank you for your reply!! Can’t believe I’ve missed this. The create rule from is currently quite limited, as you need to be in the open email: you can’t right click on anywhere that you see an email address. I would most usually use this from the email list, rather than from within an email.

actually, I’ve just tried this and I don’t have that option.

You may be using an older version of eM Client.

Please download and install the latest from the Release History

interestingly the check for updates didn’t find any updates, but I was one behind. I’ve updated to the latest and it hasn’t changed the rules to give that dropdown. Is it mac only at this stage?

The other possibility is that you are creating the Rule on a server.

Choose Local Rules if your server doesn’t support this option.


1 Like

That’s it! It is an exchange server. Sorted.

1 Like

Is it possible to create a rule which makes tagged emails move to a designated folder? Preferably applicable to a set of different tags?
I’d highly appreciate.

Unfortunately not. When a messages arrives at your server, it shouldn’t have any tags. eM Client Rules only apply automatically to new messages as they arrive, so the tag option would not be a consideration.