Over the years, I've set up a considerable number of rules in an attempt 
to keep spam out of my inbox. Very probably, some of those filters are 
no longer used, or are used only very rarely, but running through them 
has to consume some time.

Is there any way to determine the number of times each filter has 
"fired"? Some sort of monitor utility, perhaps?

Isaac

In article <isw-789CFE.10343218122010@[216.168.3.50]>,
 isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:

> Over the years, I've set up a considerable number of rules in an attempt 
> to keep spam out of my inbox. Very probably, some of those filters are 
> no longer used, or are used only very rarely, but running through them 
> has to consume some time.
> 
> Is there any way to determine the number of times each filter has 
> "fired"? Some sort of monitor utility, perhaps?
> 
> Isaac

Mail doesn't have this feature.  Why not send Apple feedback to add it 
to a future version of Mail.  Filters have a "last used date" and an 
expired after or expired at feature.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]

On 12-18-2010 13:34, isw wrote:
> Over the years, I've set up a considerable number of rules in an attempt
> to keep spam out of my inbox. Very probably, some of those filters are
> no longer used, or are used only very rarely, but running through them
> has to consume some time.
>
> Is there any way to determine the number of times each filter has
> "fired"? Some sort of monitor utility, perhaps?

If you suspect a filter is unused, but want to confirm, have it
drop its "hits" into a mail folder used by nothing else.  After
a reasonable number of days, see whether the folder is empty.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   The fight: learning and monitoring vs. acquisition and spontaneity
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=50

In article <vilain-CBEC3A.13052418122010@news.individual.net>,
 Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <isw-789CFE.10343218122010@[216.168.3.50]>,
>  isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
> 
> > Over the years, I've set up a considerable number of rules in an attempt 
> > to keep spam out of my inbox. Very probably, some of those filters are 
> > no longer used, or are used only very rarely, but running through them 
> > has to consume some time.
> > 
> > Is there any way to determine the number of times each filter has 
> > "fired"? Some sort of monitor utility, perhaps?
> > 
> > Isaac
> 
> Mail doesn't have this feature.  Why not send Apple feedback to add it 
> to a future version of Mail.  Filters have a "last used date" and an 
> expired after or expired at feature.

That could be useful. How do I access it? (Mail 3.6)

Isaac

In article <iejffj$cgd$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 12-18-2010 13:34, isw wrote:
> > Over the years, I've set up a considerable number of rules in an attempt
> > to keep spam out of my inbox. Very probably, some of those filters are
> > no longer used, or are used only very rarely, but running through them
> > has to consume some time.
> >
> > Is there any way to determine the number of times each filter has
> > "fired"? Some sort of monitor utility, perhaps?
> 
> If you suspect a filter is unused, but want to confirm, have it
> drop its "hits" into a mail folder used by nothing else.  After
> a reasonable number of days, see whether the folder is empty.

Clever. You can use one folder for a number of filters by color-coding 
the hits differently for each.

Isaac

In article <isw-2D1F57.23424318122010@[216.168.3.50]>,
 isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:

> In article <vilain-CBEC3A.13052418122010@news.individual.net>,
>  Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <isw-789CFE.10343218122010@[216.168.3.50]>,
> >  isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Over the years, I've set up a considerable number of rules in an attempt 
> > > to keep spam out of my inbox. Very probably, some of those filters are 
> > > no longer used, or are used only very rarely, but running through them 
> > > has to consume some time.
> > > 
> > > Is there any way to determine the number of times each filter has 
> > > "fired"? Some sort of monitor utility, perhaps?
> > > 
> > > Isaac
> > 
> > Mail doesn't have this feature.  Why not send Apple feedback to add it 
> > to a future version of Mail.  Filters have a "last used date" and an 
> > expired after or expired at feature.
> 
> That could be useful. How do I access it? (Mail 3.6)
> 
> Isaac

By asking Apple to include it in a future release of Apple Mail.  
Currently without a TARDIS, you can't access it.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]

In article <vilain-B138BB.01113419122010@news.individual.net>,
 Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <isw-2D1F57.23424318122010@[216.168.3.50]>,
>  isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <vilain-CBEC3A.13052418122010@news.individual.net>,
> >  Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <isw-789CFE.10343218122010@[216.168.3.50]>,
> > >  isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Over the years, I've set up a considerable number of rules in an 
> > > > attempt 
> > > > to keep spam out of my inbox. Very probably, some of those filters are 
> > > > no longer used, or are used only very rarely, but running through them 
> > > > has to consume some time.
> > > > 
> > > > Is there any way to determine the number of times each filter has 
> > > > "fired"? Some sort of monitor utility, perhaps?
> > > > 
> > > > Isaac
> > > 
> > > Mail doesn't have this feature.  Why not send Apple feedback to add it 
> > > to a future version of Mail.  Filters have a "last used date" and an 
> > > expired after or expired at feature.
> > 
> > That could be useful. How do I access it? (Mail 3.6)
> > 
> > Isaac
> 
> By asking Apple to include it in a future release of Apple Mail.  
> Currently without a TARDIS, you can't access it.

It seems like you left out the word "should", i.e. "Filters *should* 
have".  It seemed like you were saying that the date is already there.

It sounds like you're modeling this after MT-NW, which does have this 
feature.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***