Rejo Zenger wrote:
++ 22/03/00 18:25 -0500 - Rik Kabel:
I guess i'm just overlooking a thing here, but can someone explain why
this does not work?
QUAD = "([1-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|2([0-4][0-9]|5[0-5]))"
IP = "${QUAD}\.${QUAD}\.${QUAD}\.${QUAD}"
:0
* ! ^Received: \(from
* ! ^Received: from.*${IP}
[action: One of the servers did not record senders IP address.]
Replace
* ! ^Received: from.*${IP}
with
* $ ! ^Received: from.*${IP}
Sorry, that was there before, must have forget to put it back after
testing... stupid. Anyway, it still doesn't work. I have these headers
in a test message. The first line should not be caught, the second
should.
Received: from dep.bdk.rug.nl (dep.bdk.rug.nl [129.125.11.6])
by smtp6.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22416
for <rejo(_at_)sisterray(_dot_)xs4all(_dot_)nl>; Wed, 22 Mar 2000
19:21:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bdk2.bdk.rug.nl by dep.bdk.rug.nl (TAA10318); Wed, 22 Mar
2000 19:00:18 +0100 (MET)
Why will it not work probably?
But it is working properly, or at least, it is doing what you specified.
There need be only one header with a .quad address to satisfy your test.
You will need a recursive recipe set to examine each header in turn to
accomplish what you seem to want.
Note that 0 is a perfectly valid value, but excluded in your definition
of QUAD.
I know. The QUAD was copied from someone else and slightly adopted. Now
you're mentioning the zero... is a quad like 041 valid? I guess not, but
i'm not sure.
I mean an address like 212.223.234.0
--
Rik Kabel Old enough to be an adult
rik(_at_)netcom(_dot_)com