<p>Thanks for the suggestion - sorry for not getting back for so long! The context menu worked fine in Pegasus 4.41, too, I just had never realized that there was one. </p><p>It must be an accidental omission in the dialog - buglet - all (?) the other rule types have checkboxes for disabling and negating the rule. </p><p> </p><p>Thanks for helping me out! </p><p>Erik </p>

<p>I'm using Pegasus' mail filtering rules and looking for a way to exclude certain attachments from processing. The attachment rules lack the option to apply an action if the specified condition is NOT met. (Many other rules can reverse their logic that way.) </p><p>According to the docs, "attachment rules are applied in sequence to all attachments in the message". Does that mean "apply this rule's action to each matching attachment in sequence" (*)? Then what do SKIP and GOTO actions mean?</p><p>For example, assuming the following rules:</p><p><font face="courier new,courier"># MList If not header "S" contains "[MList]" Goto "!MList" If attachment NamePart matches "foo" SkipNext "" </font><font face="courier new,courier">If attachment NamePart matches "*" SaveAttmt "C:\\MList" 1</font> <font face="courier new,courier">Label "!MList"</font> </p><p>Which attachments are saved? </p><ol><li>All, unless there is a "foo" attachment, in which case nothing is saved      <i>or</i><i></i></li><li>All, except "foo"<i></i></li></ol><p>(Both cases mean that some kind of state information is conveyed from the first rule to the second.) </p><p> </p><p>Best regards</p><p>Erik, somewhat confused</p>(*) Another interpretation would be "for each attachment in the message, apply rules in sequence", but that seems contrary to Pegasus' normal rule evaluation order.

<P>To answer your first question, right-click the rule and there is an option to toggle the negation of the rule.  I'm using the latest beta of the next release, so I'm not sure if this is in the latest release version.  </P> <P>As for the rest of your post, I'm not really sure.  I'm still in the middle of testing that, but there appears to be a problem that I will need to bring to David's attention for a fix.</P>