From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier(_at_)ripco(_dot_)com>
Dallman suggested,
| Well, in that vein, couldn't X-.*-List also not match this?
|
| X-Reminder: D-Man's Wish-List
Yes, but ^X-.*-List:, which is what Bennett is using, would not. Then again,
it would match
X-Reminder: D-Man's Wish List: Rewrite in Invisible Ink and Shred
In the vein of the precision which I consistently lacked earlier (by
failing to react to the colon in his recipe), I'll remark that yours
wouldn't match the orginal either. :-) But this would:
X-Reminder: D-Man's Wish-List: Rewrite in Invisible Ink and Shred
Still like to know what was wrong with my final suggestion, if
anything:
* ! ^(X?|Mailing)-?[a-z-]*List[a-z:-]+
Although it would match somewhat more than was stated in the interest
of the single line, I don't find it overly course, especially when
compared with the couple of .* phrases that the originals had.
| Also, I must confess that it has never occurred to me that someone
| sending me a cc. wouldn't expect to be sent a vacation message. Is
| that really such a hard-and-fast rule? If I cc. someone who has a
| vacation message, *I* would prefer to get the message.
If it is important to know whether a recipient is present to read a
message, it should be sent To: him/her. Cc: is intended for FYI'ing
people who are ancillary to the exchange, to whom the text is not
directly addressed.
I find that there are levels of ancillary, and then there are levels
of ancillary. :)
--
\ .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. /
\-d-/-m-\-a-/-n-\-(_at_)-/-n-\-e-/-t-\-c-/-o-\-m-/-.-\-c-/-o-\-m-/
'-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-'