TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-05 > 1020972424


From: Terry Reigel <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Help with a filter?
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 15:27:23 -0400
References: <20020507.212127.-16714553.1.steven.chall@juno.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020508004009.034160e8@pop3.norton.antivirus> <001401c1f6a3$54d45bf0$3684dc0c@Sarles1> <001e01c1f75f$b64e1990$3684dc0c@Sarles1> <3CDA8728.B51EA8D4@reigelridge.com> <000401c1f766$56b7de60$3684dc0c@Sarles1> <3CDA8D7A.505CC662@reigelridge.com> <000601c1f76a$f84aa4c0$3684dc0c@Sarles1>


Jane Sarles wrote:

> Terry,
>
> But wouldn't that lose the spouses of siblings of ancestors and/or their
> children,

No, that's why you run the LoP multiple times - so it picks them all up.

> and witnesses who are not related?

Yes, it will miss them.

> Also candidate children & parents?

It depends on whether you have the parent/child tags marked as primary. If you do, it will
find them. If not, it will miss them.

So, the question is, how many will it miss, compared to the 322 your are looking for? If not
many, you can just manually set the flag correctly for them (that's why I said be sure to
run a LoP to see who was marked for removal). If it misses too many that you want to keep,
it wouldn't be worthwhile to do it this way.

Terry


This thread: