Search: searching for multiple words requires wildcards?

When I search for ‘invoice november’ (quotes are only to show what I type; they are not included in the search field itself) no results return. I am assuming this is because those words don’t appear in that order in any email.

However, when I search for ‘*invoice* *november*’ (see note about quotes above), the expected emails return in the result. Do I really need wildcards to search emails for more than one word?

Is this expected behavior?

Hello Sally,

The Search engine works as If you write those two words in plaintext, it will return the results only containing both of the words but not necessarily in the exact order.


Using parentheses (" ") limit the search to those words only in that exact order. That is why if the words appeared as november invoice in the message, “invoice november” would not have found it.

Without the parentheses, the words are searched in any order. So november invoice will also find the invoice sent in november.

Wildcards like the asterisk (*) do not have any effect at all.

Hi Russel and Gary —

That’s not the behavior I’m seeing. I’m not using any punctuation in my search whatsoever. My initial search is exactly as it appears below:

invoice november

This search returns no results. However, when I search with:

\*invoice\* \*november\*

This search returns results as expected — emails that contain both of the words anywhere in the email.

So, my assumptions are: 1) that the first search is returning no results because it is looking for those words in that exact order; and 2) that wildcards do have an effect.

I’m on Windows 10, eM Client version 7.1.30794.0, if it matters. If this is not expected behavior, I can open a support ticket.

Also, I just tried the following search:

invoice \*november

This search returns the same results as:

\*invoice\* \*november\*

So, adding a wildcard is having an effect and it’s returning the results that I would expect. The initial search, shown in my prior post, still returns no results.

I just realized that I am using a later version than you are. You are correct, I recreated your problem in 7.1.30794 exactly as you described.

The good news is that it has been corrected and the changes will be in the next release. It now works as Russel and I have commented above.

Sorry for the confusion.

Well, that’s good to know. Thanks for your help and have a good New Year!

Hi Sally, 

When you mentioned the version, then I understand the different behaviour of the search engine. For the fix, send me an email with a link to this thread to