procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: efficiency q: multiple addressees

2002-01-17 03:18:26

        Do not forget the score behavior!  It will scan ALL the
        ^TO or ^TO_ just to count EVERY string that you are looking
        for (for example, if you have 100 ","s the log file will show
        you "Score:    100 100 ...")
        In the second example procmail will be satisfied after find
        the FIRST APPEARANCE.  In your case if procmail will not find
        the string that you want (no "first appearance") it means that
        the ^TO or ^TO_ are short - there are no xxx,yyy,zzz,....

B,
 Udi

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, David W. Tamkin wrote:

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:15:24 -0600 (CST)
From: David W. Tamkin <dattier(_at_)pop2a(_dot_)ripco(_dot_)com>
To: procmail(_at_)Lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
Subject: efficiency q: multiple addressees

I'd like to spot mail with more than one (visible) addressee; that is to say,
either a comma in an addressee header or more than one addressee header. 
Which of these approaches is more efficient?  I'm not concerned about false
positives from commas in comments or from Resent- headers, nor about blind
carbon recipients (by the point where I'd use the recipe, any mail for sub-
scribed lists or where my address is not a listed addressee has already been
diverted):

 :0:
 * 2147483647^0 ^TO_.*,
 * -1^0
 * 1^0 ^TO_
 multiples

or

 :0:
 * ^TO_.*(,|(^.+)*^TO_)
 multiples

I'd suppose that the former is quicker when there is a comma in an addressee
header, but otherwise I can't guess.

_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail



--


_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>