Greetings. I'm a longtime POP Peeper user but quite new to the PRO version. I'm liking it a lot, but have ahead of me, a similar amount of climbing up the learning curve — i.e., a lot!. ¶ Anyway, so much for intros … here's my question:
Is there a way to change an incoming mail item's previously assigned category (either "Junk" or "Legit") back to "Unknown" so that it appears with the blue spherical flag and with dark magenta text against a light magenta background (or the color scheme of my choosing)?
If this is doable, then any help you can provide in the way of instruction will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
—Thri
[PRO Question]: Changing inbox item's status back to "Unknown"
Re: [PRO Question]: Changing inbox item's status back to "Unknown"
If you marked a message as either Junk or Legit, then marking that message again will reverse the effects. e.g. if you marked a message as Junk, then pressing the "Junk" button again will cause it not be marked as Junk anymore.
But, I need to ask why you're asking this, because I'm either not understanding your question or there's more to the question that I can explain further. If the system evaluated a message as "unknown" then it's best that you mark the message as either Junk or Legit so that AntiJunk can learn (and, when you're first starting with AntiJunk, it's best to mark *all* messages as junk or legit, even if the system evaluated it appropriately). Eventually, almost none of your new messages will be evaluated as "unknown".
But, I need to ask why you're asking this, because I'm either not understanding your question or there's more to the question that I can explain further. If the system evaluated a message as "unknown" then it's best that you mark the message as either Junk or Legit so that AntiJunk can learn (and, when you're first starting with AntiJunk, it's best to mark *all* messages as junk or legit, even if the system evaluated it appropriately). Eventually, almost none of your new messages will be evaluated as "unknown".
Re: [PRO Question]: Changing inbox item's status back to "Unknown"
Jeff–
Thanks for your quick reply.
¶ You know, I'd thought about my question a bit and I kind of anticipated some of your response; that is, I've recognized the design goal of getting one's inbox to a place where it's a binary proposition. The mail is either wanted ("Legit") or not ("Junk"). I do get this and it makes sense to me. I guess where I'm coming from goes something like this: maybe one initially marks something as Junk but then has second thoughts — and not that one is convinced that it's wanted; just that one has become unconvinced that it's not. Combine this with my penchant for keeping incoming mail in POP Peeper for extended periods of time (I often find it easier to peruse there than within my POP software). Within this context, it would be nice to have those items I'm "on the fence" about, retain an "Unknown" color scheme for both the spherical flag and the text/background colors. Without that, I suppose one could use the eyeglasses flag to provide a similar cue as to which items are "undecided."
¶ In writing this, it's occurred to me that ideally, one would have four possible categories: "Unknown" which may never become a choice per sé; in other words, some mail might arrive as "unknown" at which point the user would designate one of three categories: Junk, Legit or Undecided (or "TBD"). Anyway, I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from with this question.
¶ Also, I should mention that while composing this, I had the opportunity to click the Junk button on an item already marked as Junk. This did not return the color scheme back to an "Unknown" state; it retained its Junk color, etc. Repeatedly toggling through the flag/color schemes by clicking on the spherical flag seems to end up just essentially toggling between Junk and Legit flag/color schemes.
Anyway, thanks again for your quick and thorough response.
Regards,
—Thri
Thanks for your quick reply.
¶ You know, I'd thought about my question a bit and I kind of anticipated some of your response; that is, I've recognized the design goal of getting one's inbox to a place where it's a binary proposition. The mail is either wanted ("Legit") or not ("Junk"). I do get this and it makes sense to me. I guess where I'm coming from goes something like this: maybe one initially marks something as Junk but then has second thoughts — and not that one is convinced that it's wanted; just that one has become unconvinced that it's not. Combine this with my penchant for keeping incoming mail in POP Peeper for extended periods of time (I often find it easier to peruse there than within my POP software). Within this context, it would be nice to have those items I'm "on the fence" about, retain an "Unknown" color scheme for both the spherical flag and the text/background colors. Without that, I suppose one could use the eyeglasses flag to provide a similar cue as to which items are "undecided."
¶ In writing this, it's occurred to me that ideally, one would have four possible categories: "Unknown" which may never become a choice per sé; in other words, some mail might arrive as "unknown" at which point the user would designate one of three categories: Junk, Legit or Undecided (or "TBD"). Anyway, I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from with this question.
¶ Also, I should mention that while composing this, I had the opportunity to click the Junk button on an item already marked as Junk. This did not return the color scheme back to an "Unknown" state; it retained its Junk color, etc. Repeatedly toggling through the flag/color schemes by clicking on the spherical flag seems to end up just essentially toggling between Junk and Legit flag/color schemes.
Anyway, thanks again for your quick and thorough response.
Regards,
—Thri
Re: [PRO Question]: Changing inbox item's status back to "Unknown"
When a new message comes into POP Peeper, the system will evaluate it and there are 3 possible outcomes: legit, junk or unknown. The user only has the option of legit or junk. For the message you're referencing, the message was likely already system-evaluated either legit or junk, so -- let's say the system evaluated it as legit -- your only options are to confirm it as legit, override it as junk, or ignore it and allow the system to believe it was correct in its evaluation (which is not the same as actually confirming it). So, if the system evaluates it as legit or junk, there's no (convenient) way to mark the message as an unknown state.
Assigning a message as legit/junk actually *does* something; that is, it's training the system that messages like this are more likely to be legit/junk. Marking a message as "TBD" wouldn't actually *do* anything so, yes, I think the in the scenario you're describing, using a "user flag" like the glasses would be the most practical work-around.
On a related note, I think it could be helpful if the user flags had the option of highlighting the message by colorizing the message. This could effectively achieve your expectation of being able to mark a message as "TBD," but also have the more general use of simply making certain messages easier to see/find. e.g. I use user flags pretty extensively and so marking a message as "important" gets lost, but if important messages were shown in yellow, that would make them much easier to spot...
I like that idea so much, I may add that as a hidden option into v5.0....
Assigning a message as legit/junk actually *does* something; that is, it's training the system that messages like this are more likely to be legit/junk. Marking a message as "TBD" wouldn't actually *do* anything so, yes, I think the in the scenario you're describing, using a "user flag" like the glasses would be the most practical work-around.
On a related note, I think it could be helpful if the user flags had the option of highlighting the message by colorizing the message. This could effectively achieve your expectation of being able to mark a message as "TBD," but also have the more general use of simply making certain messages easier to see/find. e.g. I use user flags pretty extensively and so marking a message as "important" gets lost, but if important messages were shown in yellow, that would make them much easier to spot...
I like that idea so much, I may add that as a hidden option into v5.0....
Re: [PRO Question]: Changing inbox item's status back to "Unknown"
Thanks, Jeff. Your further reply is most helpful. Re-emphasizing the "learning" nature of the application brought home to me why a fourth (TBD) category would, in the larger scheme of things, be counterproductive. ¶ I think your idea for being able to apply flag-corresponding text color schemes is most excellent. If you do this, and it's at all possible to do — without requiring an inordinate amount of work — it would be great if the actual color choices assigned to each flag could be user-selectable among a wide palette of colors. ¶ Once again, thanks for the quick reply and explanation. It's actually helping me get more oriented about the POP Peeper PRO environment. Best regards, —Thri
Re: [PRO Question]: Changing inbox item's status back to "Unknown"
The feature is in and will be available in v5.0 beta19. For now, this may end up being a non-gui option (ie. requires manually modifying the ini file). I'm considering adding a "user flag" options page in PPtweaker that would add some additional quality of life improvements, such as being able to more easily add custom graphics, so this may come sometime after v5.0.
beta 19 isn't available as of right now, but if you're using the beta and you're interested in this feature, let me know and I'll provide details on what to do to enable it.
beta 19 isn't available as of right now, but if you're using the beta and you're interested in this feature, let me know and I'll provide details on what to do to enable it.