In message
<Pine(_dot_)SUN(_dot_)3(_dot_)96(_dot_)970608145500(_dot_)17138F-100000(_at_)omni1>,
Luke Davis writes:
} It can't be; thus my idea of how the software works is extremly wrong.:)
You're right.
} Extract from procmailex:
}
} To store mail from Peter about Compilers in 'petcompile':
}
} :0:
} * ^From.*Peter
} * ^Subject:.*Compilers
} petcompile
}
} Here's the problem I have with it:
}
} Unless I miss my guess, the following message would also be stored in
} petcompile:
I see no reason for you to guess; it's almost trivially simple to test
your theory and see that your understanding of how such a recipe works
is inaccurate.
} >From: Luke Davis <ldavis(_at_)dynanet(_dot_)com>
} >Subject: info about compilers:
} >
} >Message-Text
}
} I come up with that by the facts that the message has to match any *1* of
} the afirmitive conditions, and will only be rejected if 1) it matches
} *none* of the afirmitive conditions, and 2) does match any *1* of the
} negative conditions.
} If that's so, then any mail from peter, or any mail relating to compilers
} *will* go in petcompilers...
}
} I don't want to say the document is wrong; but for it to be right, I have
} just spent a month writing a script to do server processing;for which I
} will not be payd, because it won't work.:)
Maybe in the future, your client will learn to hire people who do some
testing before investing a month's worth of time into something.
--
Jon Hamilton hamilton(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com |
hamilton(_at_)pitviper(_dot_)med(_dot_)ge(_dot_)com
<A HREF="http://www.pobox.com/~hamilton";>Jon Hamilton's homepage</A>