era eriksson <era(_at_)iki(_dot_)fi> writes:
...
What I thought he was asking, after thinking the same thing you
apparently thought, was if there could be something less cumbersome
than recursive INCLUDERC=s and all that jive to look for a
multi-condition pattern. If there are many matches, Procmail will grab
the first, but perhaps it is the second one which would satisfy your
additional checks against MATCH. That sort of thing is what I imagine
this is about. (But I haven't really gone back and looked at the start
of this thread. Anyway, if that's not what Ralph meant, consider this
one of +my+ top items for the wish list.)
Hmm, that sounds like "look ahead assertions", at least for the case where
the additional checks are regexps. Is that what you're thinking of, era?
Philip Guenther