Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 26th Jun 2011 18:01 UTC, submitted by Debjit
Thread beginning with comment 479069
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Tried "local" search, or quick filters as TB calls it ? It does both of these perfectly well, although I can understand that it can be a bit of a bother if you have lots of mailboxes. Myself, I've given up on global search since I've discovered that, and now systematically disable it for interface cleanness and speed.
RE[7]: Nice, but...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 29th Jun 2011 18:46
in reply to "RE[6]: Nice, but..."
Yeah, but that only works for simple searches. Haven't used it much because of the reduced functionality. I'm not sure if it still searches attachments. It doesn't work for more complex searches where I'm filtering by sender and subject and body contents.
Just tested for attachment searching... It still does search attachments.
Edited 2011-06-29 18:48 UTC




Member since:
2006-07-14
I have two problems with thunderbird searching.
1) The search results cannot be correctly sorted by date. It does an alphanumeric search which can cause me to miss some items if I'm not thinking about its messed up sort.
2) Searching the body of a message also searches the contents of an attachment. Even binary attachments are searched. So sometimes I get a hit on a message, but the real search hit was in the strings table of the pdf or what not. Searching the contents of a text attachment might be nice, but that should be a separate search option.