We are waiting to see what is in 7.2, but failing that maybe it will be there eventually in 8.
Unfortunately it is all very hush-hush. Even after a version is released, there seems to be some reluctance to say what has changed, so what can you expect for what is planned for future versions? 
If there is an official forum where user can discuss, a company should be aware about the effect to prospect customers seeing their ignorance to long term wishes that have been realised partly in other products for years. Especially, if these wishes reside in an area where you could (easily) trump over most competitors.
I am having three lifetime licenses but I am not shure if I will live to see these things realized. Taking this thread as a time messure, it might be a good idea to look for an alternative in the near future. Accepting that the licences were monetary support for a product, that sticks in basic development problems because of much to long development cycles. I should have taken a deeper view into this forum before.
I am typically patient on those things because I am a software developer, too, knowing the difficulties of user wishes and realisation. I bought emClient because it was advertised for it’s outstanding filter capabilities (now removed from the website). That’s why this bothers me.
To be honest, emClient is in many points ahead of competitors. But the lack of a full set of keyboard shortcuts and advanced e-mail functionality is a true nuisance for me.
For what its worth I would like this boolean search as well.
So, I moved to Outlook about 2 years ago because of this and considered moving back as I assumed that this would have been fixed by now. But surprise surprise, nothing has changed it seems. Wow!!
Actually, both “and” and “or” do work. For example, text:“fun” “party” will retrieve any email with either “fun” or “party”. Text:fun text:party will only retrieve emails with both fun and party. NOT is a problem…
Thumbs up! Very useful hint. Knowing it, it seems obvious, but getting the idea to try it this way … THANKS!
I’m still in the evaluation phase for eM Client, and am working on setting up all my rules.
Typically for multiple projects, each for a different client (I’m a consultant) I set up a rule to have all messages TO or FROM a given contact get MOVED into the appropriate project FOLDER. I tried setting up a rule and checking both “to a person” and “from a person”, and to my surprise, nothing got moved under this rule. I figured out it was applying all the checked conditions using “AND” boolean logic. So I needed to create two separate rules, one for FROM and one for TO, for a given group of contacts.
So is there still no way to do this with a single rule?
One solution (though not very generic!) would be to simply add another condition called “from OR to people”. Seems like this would be very easy to implement, no?
Because the to and from Rules are applied differently, you need to setup a separate Rule for each.
First setup a Rule to handle the incoming messages.
Then create a new Rule to handle the Sent messages.
Otherwise if you setup a single Rule with both from people and sent to people, it will look for both those conditions in any new single incoming message only.
An alternative is to use Smart Folders and leave the messages where they are supposed to be. You can create a Search Folder to show all messages received from a person as well as all those sent to the same person.
Please see the [Help File (F1)](https://www.emclient.com/webdocumentation/en/7.0/eMClient/Default.htm#Smart%20Folders/About%20Smart%20Folders.htm%3FTocPath%3DFeatures|Smart%20Folders| _____ 0) on using Smart/Search Folders.
This example will show all messages (from any folders) that were either sent to ICPete OR received from ICPete.
OK thanks Gary; that’s what I was finding; needing two rules.
As far as Smart/Search Folders, from what I understand so far, the search folders don’t get flagged with an “Unread” messages count, but I could use the “Unread” Smart Folder to quickly review my unread messages. That could work. But for the past 20 years (!) I’ve used an email client that has easy-to-set-up rules that place my incoming messages into the Project Folders I’ve set up, and there’s a bold number displayed next to any folder that has new (unread) messages. I keep all messages filed in the project folders, so I can go back years later and find a particular discussion.
If I understand correctly, the Search Folder is not a “real” folder; as you said, the messages remain in their original locations (like the Inbox?). The advantage of organizing via “real” folders is that I can move messages around quickly and easily, which happens often if I have multiple projects going on with one client. I auto-sort them into the major project folder, then manually move ones to the minor project when appropriate (because there’s usually no way to detect which project is involved without applying some AI or HI). So I’m kind of seeing Search Folders as being useful for short-term finding, but not so much for long-term archiving.
I will admit I’m “old fashioned” in the sense I rely more on folder structures I set up that I find logical, rather than depending on searching, when it comes to both document files and messages. I’ll play around some more with Search Folders. Right now I’m thinking maybe a Search Folder would work until a project is basically finished, at which point I could move all the messages in the Search Folder to a Job Folder that I set up.
This is definitely a different way of working with messages than I’m accustomed to, but I’m optimistic I can make it work. After a few weeks I should know whether I’m going to pay and keep it, or try something different.
Thanks again for your help, Gary.
Yeah, something a little different. 
Search Folders would be the best solution in my opinion, simply because they don’t involve moving messages around. Multiple Search Folders can include the same set of messages, but displayed in different ways. Still can’t understand why they have never included an unread count though!
Anyway, the two Rule option will give you the result that you’re used to, including the unread count.
just wanted to put a comment here to show my support for adding ‘not’ functionality (and making the way to use ‘or’ and ‘and’ more obvious!)
Yikes. Six years later. Is the answer still that no one wants this?
)