Rules Wizard keyword Search List isn't alphabetized. Huh?

[baobob]

In using Outlook 2002's Rules Wizard to auto-delete incoming spam
based on keywords (in the body, subject, etc.), the sub-dialog in
which you add/delete keywords lists them *un-alphabetized*. *What*
the?

Is there a workaround--e.g. editing the keywords in the Registry
instead?

Thanks much.

***

 

[Brian Tillman [MVP - Outlook]]

In using Outlook 2002's Rules Wizard to auto-delete incoming spam
based on keywords (in the body, subject, etc.), the sub-dialog in
which you add/delete keywords lists them *un-alphabetized*. *What*
the?

It lists them in the order in which you entered them. So what if they're not
alphabetical? It doesn't affect the rule's behavior in any significant way.

Trying to eliminate spam with rules is nearly pointless. Get a good antispam
filter. This one works with Outlook 2002 and is free:
http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/

 

[baobob]

Brian:

Thanks very much for reply.

Yes, I was aware that the order of the keywords was original input
order.

[But the question (and complaint) remain:

- When, in what decade of computing, will Microsoft begin obeying the
alphabet?

- In what decade of computing, will Microsoft acquire the simple
capability of following a business paradigm it itself sets--
alphabetize all lists displayed to a human, in all contexts?

- Er...what does "So what if they're not alphabetized" mean? The
answer is: So I don't have to scroll up and down thru dozens and
dozens of unalphabetized keywords in a rule merely to verify whether a
word is in the list.

- You indicate we shouldn't use the Rules Wizard to delete spam. But
if it weren't up to the task, I wouldn't use it, nor ask the question.
In fact the Wizard works fine for me. Sure, a few spams sneak thru,
but I can handle 'em. For me, and I suspect for hundreds of thousands
of others, the Wizard deletes much spam fine. It just needs tweaks by
its designers to fix a few totally bone-headed glitches. [Cf.
neighboring post re. Wizard's failure to regard keywords in HTML
source.]

But, those tweaks it needs leads of course to your final suggestion,
to use a 3rd-party product. Which as you say is probably the best
suggestion of all.]

Thanks very much again.

***