[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference chefs::ms-exchange

Title:Microsoft Exchange Server
Notice:
Moderator:FLASK2::SYSTEM
Created:Fri Feb 17 1995
Last Modified:Thu Jun 05 1997
Last Successful Update:Thu Jun 05 1997
Number of topics:1099
Total number of notes:5174

1033.0. "Sort inbox so unread items are top?" by WOTVAX::HILTON (Save Water, drink beer) Thu Apr 24 1997 23:15

    Is there any way of sorting your inbox so unread items are at the top?
    
    I found a filter, but that then only shows unread items, and doesn't
    show any read ones!
     
    
    
    Greg
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
1033.1BUSY::SLABForget the doctor - get me a nurse!Fri Apr 25 1997 00:215
    
    	Clicking on the picture of the envelope in the title bar at the top
    	of the window appears to sort the messages by "read" status, much
    	like clicking on "From" or "Subject" sorts the messages in order.
    
1033.2BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Fri Apr 25 1997 02:457

	If you don't have "end time" listed as how you are sorting, then make 
sure it is there. Because that is the only way I could get it to work. 



1033.3Easy but not obviousmro-ras-1-20.mro.dec.com::levineRandy LevineFri Apr 25 1997 06:2412
It's hardly obvious but very easy to sort messages by any column in the 
display.  Just click on the column heading.  If you click it again it toggles 
between ascending and descending order.

So to do what .0 wants, just click on the grey time column heading.  It will 
sort by time.  If it's ascending time order (you want descending so most 
recent will be first) then click again on the column heading.

You can do the same thing on the From heading to sort by sender, etc.

You can also do the same thing in Explorer to sort by file type, time, name, 
etc.
1033.4Sort by date NE unread firstSMURF::PBECKWho put the bop in the hale-de-bop-de-bop?Fri Apr 25 1997 08:438
    Ah, but what .0 is asking for is to sort so that UNREAD mail is
    first, not most recent. That's not the same thing.
    
    In Eudora Pro this can be done easily as there is a column for
    Status (which includes read/unread/replied/forwarded etc.) that you
    can sort by. I didn't see a similar column with Outlook mail when I
    tried it, so I don't know if there's an equivalent with Exchange or
    not.
1033.5BUSY::SLABGo Go Gophers watch them go go go!Fri Apr 25 1997 09:036
    
    	OK, let me try this again.
    
    	Click on the envelope and it will bring the unread items to the
    	top.  8^)
    
1033.6Envelope clicking doesn't work!WOTVAX::HILTONSave Water, drink beerFri Apr 25 1997 14:376
    re .5
    
    Doesn't seem to do that, I click on the envelope and 2 unread mail
    messages still appear miles down the inbox.
    
    Greg
1033.7VAXCAT::LAURIEDesktop Consultant, Project EnterpriseFri Apr 25 1997 14:513
    Click on it again, Greg, and the order is reversed.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.
1033.8BUSY::SLABGood Heavens,Commander,what DID you do?Fri Apr 25 1997 16:559
    
    	RE: .6/.7
    
    	Yeah I tried it this morning and I had three failures from "Sys-
    	tem Administrator" that appeared on the bottom even though there
    	were seven others from other senders [non-failures] that appeared
    	on the top.
    
    
1033.9BUSY::SLABGot into a war with reality ...Fri Apr 25 1997 17:187
    
    	Oh, how about a suggestion?
    
    	Every time you go through and read new mail, move it all to the
    	"Mail" folder so that the only thing left in the In-box is al-
    	ways new mail.
    
1033.10VMSNET::mickey.alf.dec.com::s_voreSmile, Mickey's watching! vore@mail.dec.comFri Apr 25 1997 17:437
Take a look at the View|Sort... dialog box -- there is no field for 
"received/not received" to choose.  I don't think you can do it.

You could choose the "unread items" view and only see your unread 
messages.


1033.11Good all Msoft!!WOTVAX::blyth.lzo.dec.com::hiltonghiltong@mail.dec.comFri Apr 25 1997 19:425
Laurie and others,

No matter how many times I click the envelope it doesn't do what I requested in .0

Greg
1033.12BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Fri Apr 25 1997 19:446
| <<< Note 1033.4 by SMURF::PBECK "Who put the bop in the hale-de-bop-de-bop?" >>>

| Ah, but what .0 is asking for is to sort so that UNREAD mail is
| first, not most recent. That's not the same thing.

	Wouldn't unread mail be the most recent?
1033.13BUSY::SLABch-ch-ch-ch-ha-ha-ha-haFri Apr 25 1997 20:2915
    
    	Glen, do you think I read all of your messages as soon as I get
    	them?
    
    	I generally try to put it off as long as possible.
    
    	8^)
    
    	As a rule, though, if you read everything as it comes in and don't
    	do some sort of visual scan of the messages, all of the new mess-
    	ages will have the latest date on them.  However, this might not be
    	the case if you have messages coming in from a different time zone
    	[a zone that's behind yours].
    	
    
1033.14Outlook is sorta there...NPSS::GLASERSteve Glaser DTN 226-7212 LKG1-2/W6 (G17)Fri Apr 25 1997 20:3216
    While it's not exactly what was asked for, in Outlook you can do
    "messages with AutoPreview".
    
    This gives you a few line summary of the message along with the message
    headers. This summary is in blue and disappears once you have read the
    message.
    
    This coupled with a "sort by received" is pretty close to what was
    asked for. It wouldn't fly if you had LOTS of messages in a folder that
    you have been ignoring (unread) for a while.
    
    In outlook you can also sort based on Retrieved time in addition to
    Received time. I'm not up on the distinction, but it might also be
    useful in this case.
    
    Steveg
1033.15SMURF::PBECKWho put the bop in the hale-de-bop-de-bop?Fri Apr 25 1997 21:1816
>   <<< Note 1033.12 by BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/" >>>
>
>| <<< Note 1033.4 by SMURF::PBECK "Who put the bop in the hale-de-bop-de-bop?" >>>
>
>| Ah, but what .0 is asking for is to sort so that UNREAD mail is
>| first, not most recent. That's not the same thing.
>
>	Wouldn't unread mail be the most recent?
    
    No.
    
    Unread mail is any mail I haven't read yet. I determine what to read
    when according to the subject title and how relatively important it
    is to deal with immediately. Distribution list information that is
    basically background material can sometimes wait days before you
    really need to get to it.
1033.16Pretty hard to sort "not received" mailHELIX::SONTAKKEFri Apr 25 1997 21:4712
    RE: .10
    
    > Take a look at the View|Sort... dialog box -- there is no field for
    > "received/not received" to choose.  I don't think you can do it.
    
    I would be *really* surprised if you could sort your messages by
    "received/not received" field.
    
    Given a choice, I would like all "not received" mail to be at the top. 
    That way, I will have tomorrow's Dow Jones in my mail yesterday :-)
    
    - Vikas
1033.17Another viewWOTVAX::16.194.208.3::warder.reo.dec.com::sharkeyaWho am I now ?Fri Apr 25 1997 23:587
What you really want is some macro that moves the read mail to another 
folder automatically for later refiling.

Is this possible in Exchange/Outlook or only in old legacy apps ?

Alan

1033.18BUSY::SLABA seemingly endless timeSat Apr 26 1997 00:207
    
    	Uh-oh, here we go again.
    
    	All together now ... "VMS does that".
    
    	8^)
    
1033.19SPECXN::WITHERSBob WithersSat Apr 26 1997 02:008
Try:

    VIEW!FILTER!ADVANCED!UNREAD (and you can set the "does not match" to view
only read items.

Its as close as you get(I think).

BobW