Hello David!
"DWT" == David W Tamkin <dattier(_at_)Mcs(_dot_)Net> writes:
DWT> Philip Guenther suggested to Ralph Sobek,
DWT> | :0:
DWT> | * 9876543210^0 ^\/(From|Subject):.*Condition1
DWT> | * 9876543210^0 B ?? ()\/Condition2
DWT> | * -9876543210^0
DWT> | * ! From:.*(Person1|Person2)
DWT> | | (formail -z ...)
This works really great!!!
DWT> Heck, if it weren't for the extraction operator, we could combine the first
DWT> two:
DWT> * 9876543210 HB ??
^^(.+$)*((From|Subject):.*Condition1|$(.*$)*.*Condition2)
DWT> If "Condition1" and "Condition2" had been the same, we could manage it even
DWT> *with* the extraction. The limitation is that you can't extract inside an
DWT> alternation (though you can alternate on either side of an extractor) I've
DWT> occasionally wished it were possible, but changing it probably would break
DWT> something else (besides bloating the code).
The two Conditions ARE THE SAME! Is your one-liner more efficient
than Philip's 3 line version? I could be happy with just the
extraction before the Condition. I suppose that the result would look
like:
* HB ?? ^^(.+$)*((From|Subject):.*Condition|$(.*$)*.*Condition)
Is this any more efficient? On second thought, this would let through
`Condition' on other headers besides From or Subject! And that is
bad!
Let's keep improving this thread.
Thanks to all the contributors,
--Ralph