Skip to content

Request for Ability to Check [x] one, some, all, or none of imported e-mails

DeeeeeeeeDeeeeeeee the Americas
edited January 26 in Feature Requests
OK; now I know about the right-click Modify Projects>>Import e-Mails>>From A File
I need to re-re-re-review all the SER features. I know there are more I still haven't found or totally forgot about!

This one I never knew about. :blush:  Wasted time, but thankfully found this option before wasting too much time!

Sven, I notice on importing a set of two e-mails (via file), only the second e-mail imported gets checked. I am not sure why this is, but maybe it's useful for some GSA users set like this by default?
I did not test the behavior for multiple e-mails imported via file beyond a set of two, but even with two, it would be good to have a choice of which to select.

Presently, SER doesn't ask about which imported e-mails should be checked, I guess.

This might be useful:

Which imported e-mails should be checked? ( [X])
[ ] All  [ ] None [ ] Some or Single e-mail (user specifies single e-mail, range, or list with commas, referring to e-mail import slot number)

Comments

  • SvenSven www.GSA-Online.de
    that the first one is not checked is fixed in next update
    however, most customers will probably want it to be checked so offering another option here is not required i think.
    Thanked by 1Deeeeeeee
  • DeeeeeeeeDeeeeeeee the Americas
    edited January 26
    "that the first one is not checked is fixed in next update'
    @Sven: OK, thank you. 

    "Why would you want that or how what you find it helpful in addition to what options are already there?"
    @BacklinkAddict:  I was assuming there was a reason why users might want the first e-mail in the list unchecked, as it is now on import. I guess that's not really the case... hmm...why else? I guess it's not really a useful feature to include, as there's not really any use cases i can think of. 
    Unlike testing emails, where you may only want SER to test SOME e-mails, using the rest for verification only, I can't think of a single reason to implement this for checkbox, thinking about it again. :|
    You are right....this might be a lot of work for nothing.
    "As a side note, on options forgotten/not known about and your many recent questions about footprints, scrapebox and moving between programs did you know there is a very nice feature for scraping Urls/sitelists built right into SER?"
    Nooooooooooooo....I didn't know about this~! Sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :astonished:
    Thank you so much. I have a lot to do trying to tie all this together.  So far, going well.
    I'm also in the process of re-doing projects while learning, as well as resolving any issues with my set-up. I think at this point, issues are resolved and it's just full speed ahead with the new learning, then integrating it all into what I'm doing.  Def having fun with this! :tongue:

  • DeeeeeeeeDeeeeeeee the Americas
    I was thinking about it while walking today.  I guess adding this would be mostly useless.
    But there could be an application for all this, though probably not so useful, really, tbh.
    OK; let's say you want to import some e-mails. Let's make it easy and say six.
    So, imagining that users had that option and could choose which catchall e-mail accounts were unchecked and checked upon import,  let's say you [X] check three and leave three unchecked on  import.
    Let's say after some time you want to quick-swap out active e-mails on multiple projects, there could be a corresponding right-click context menu option that lets the user toggle checked [x] and unchecked [x] for selected projects.
    Outside of something like that, I don't know...probably doesn't making sense, really, to bother with such options when a user can just import new e-mail accounts with ease, already. I guess it saves the user having to import a second set, at most. And, ALL checked e-mail accounts would need to have to be swapped at once,  while it would be rare that that would actually ever be the case...so...Not really so useful, then!l. lol :pensive:  I know this isn't what I need to focus on, just wanted to share that, all the same.
Sign In or Register to comment.