diabolusss
commented
3 years ago Partly I must agree with you, it both makes a feel of cluttering and the need to add more. However, just for me, it's useful, because keywords I search can be caught anywhere in subject or body. That means that without such filter I need to duplicate each filter, moreover, if there is a need to fix smth there then it's a double work — fix, then find & replace it in another place. I haven't found a better solution (and yes, that forced me to extract callbacks for re-usability), but I think this one is optimal.
On the bright side, I have a strong belief that there will be no need for combining almost exclusive fields, like body & CC or subject & To, etc, into one filter. I can hardly imagine similar contents there. I mean, is it even possible to write long text into To or CC!? And even if there is a plausible point to do that, such filters would be unmaintainable or redundant, because spammers generate unpredictable words for addresses and legal senders, on the contrary, use well known, seldom changed addresses. To strengthen my point, i've often seen spam where subject and body contains some similar or equal contents, and before i've found Thunderbird and this add-on it was a huge problem to update such filters in gmail. At some point, they just broke with no reason.
But here i'm talking only about legal content, i.e. advertisements sent via rss — content with almost predefined structure and location, subject & body. And even here the match can be in any place, and it always differs, but keywords are the same and filters must be duplicated…
I hope my point of view is crystal clear.
Question: why do we need a separate subjectBody regex when the user can combine subject regex + body regex in 2 separate conditions? Feels like we are cluttering the user with too many options. Then we should have subjectTo and BodyCC and all sorts of combinations as separate conditions, that doesn't make sense to me.