I too am surprised about the lack of boolean rules. This is a must have feature. I’m truly disappointed about this because I like the way the rest of the program works. Oh well, I will continue evaluating other email clients.
I will add my support for this feature. Creating dozens of rules when 1 rule with the boolean function will work seems to be something that should have been included a long time ago.
In Outlook, I had a rule for SPAM and could just add a new condition as the need arose. Now I have to add a completely new rule - makes no sense to me.
EM support, PLEASE add this feature for us faithful users.
Hello Steve,
I am not sure if your problem is the same - while we do not have the ‘or’ combination, adding to the existing rule can be done in Tools>Rules and then click Edit on the chosen spam rule to add addresses or conditions to it.
Regards,
Olivia
Funny things happen here: The OP is now 4 years (!!!) old and nothing happened so far. My posting is one year old since complaining about those missing enhancements for the first time and now, even in v7 no sign of any enhancements to the rules either.
Come on, you can’t be taken serious anymore. Why does it take so long for just releasing a beta. As far as I know you are still on the alpha channel.
The implementation of conversation view can’t be that difficult to bind all of your ressources, right?And to be honest there are not many other new features in v7, that would justify this long period of development.
Hello Olivia,
When you add conditions to a rule, the rule uses an AND operand which make no sense in my case (and most cases).
As explained earlier, if you are filtering mail from team members, it is easier to add an OR operand for each member rather than having to create a new rule. An AND operator will never work as you would be looking for mail from Team Member 1 AND Team Member 2.
Come one, can it be that hard to implement??? This is akin to Apple not having Cut and Paste in their first iPhone!!
Interesting response… same response to each and EVERY request for RULES ENHANCEMENT!!! If you really believe what you espouse to EVERY request for RULES ENHANCEMENT, this would have been done long ago…
Hi Steve,
I see, I misunderstood your problem, I thought you were having trouble adding the ‘and’ conditions as well.
I’m sorry for the inconvenience.
Regards,
Olivia
Indeed surprising that this basic functionality has still not been implemented even in the latest beta. This is a critical feature basically blocking from going with an otherwise excellent email client. Please implement boolean search in upcoming version 7. Thanks!
Hello, I need an “OR” for the rules too. Don’t want to create different rules for the same job… But as said before, it seems to be difficult to make the program evolve.
You won’t see this happen in version 7, too, nor in any upcoming versions, since the maintainer simply won’t change anything for advanced users.
I’ve already written many lines before asking for several enhancements like this and other improvements. Many of my postings are already several months old if not years.
Pls. vote/see this thread: https://forum.emclient.com/emclient/topics/enhancements-for-rules
Michael
Yea, I’ve read this all the way down this entire feature and your response is always the same… If you actually considered it, you would have realized by now that this is a huge timesaver in not only setting rules, but in allowing the rules to be quickly done when mail is downloads. People have asked for this request now for at least 5 years as a lifetime upgrader, I tend to use this software only on my laptop when I am on vacation or when I am on a trip, and that’s because the rules feature of this software is so behind the times. All the major email softwares including Thunderbird, Outlook and Windows Mail all have this feature, I’d bet even Pegasus has this feature and to not include it after so many have asked for it is short sighted. You can’t gain new customers to the software if they don’t find things that have been helpful to them in other softwares and no one wants to make a rule for the same thing 3 times just to be sure the email gets moved to the proper place. It’s to bad you really don’t listen to your customers, bets are you could make emClient the best client on the web if you did, and don’t you think that alone would increase your sales. Short sighted… that’s what you are.
I have been wanting the OR function ever since I purchased your product. Who wants to duplicate their work for a single rule, then have to scroll through dozens of rules when a modification needs to be made. This should absolutely be a priority.
I have found a workaround for the OR/AND function. Try using one keyword with multiple search strings, i.e., text:“fedex” “tracking”. This will display all items that have “fedex” or "tracking " in an item, thus an OR function. This is opposed to text:“fedex” text:“tracking”, which is essentially an and function, only displaying items with “FedEx” and “tracking”. Hopefully, you can find some usefulness in this. now, if there was only a workaround for NOT…
I have a hard time how this change ie adding OR / NOT to rules is not implemented. It should be a couple of lines change in the code, nothing major really…
There is a simple answer to the original question: Apply rule after message received; where the from line contains xxx OR where the to line contains xxx; move it to the yyy folder. Maybe it was not there 6 years back, but it is now.
This can be done with the condition with words found in the header.
The following rule is an OR condition:
1 Like
OR / NOT can be implemented like this:
Thanks a lot, this is perfect. Cheers. Daniel
A frequent request seems to be the hability to sort emails sent from or sent to a person, perhaps a INVOLVES (similar to Thunderbird) rule could solve a great deal of these requests.
Yes! It is so much easier especially if you have a list of names you want to add to the Rule. The From, To, CC, or BCC option in Thunderbird means you don’t have to enter everything twice or more. 
I am wondering how long it can take to get something realized that is a _ standard _ since years in other pro-tools. We are not talking about rocket science.
This thread started October, 2012 and as far as I can see nothing has changed since then.
The rules should be improved as soon as possible.
Highly useful and required but currently not available:
- filtering for a missing phrase
- a REGEX option for complex filtering, comparable to the functionality of “Roundcube” or similar systems.
- Choosing if all (AND = currently the only option) or any (= OR) of the rules in a definition have to match
The standard spam and blacklist filters do not work trustworthy. After deleting them (!) the filtering results improved tremendously.
In some other places is mentioned that filtering should be done better server-sided. This is a poor argument. If rules/filtering is offered, it should give you at hand what you need locally.