Re: Suggestion for Enhancement; B, H, ... and D

At 13:04 2002-02-16 -0600, David W. Tamkin wrote:

> I was deliberately staying away from that.  For now I'd be content with
> leaving `D' off the colon line and marking every condition that needed
> case-sensitivity.
I've gotta ask:  why not have a regexp switch, such as a trailing slash 
operator?
* ^Subject:.*sometext/D

(or the converse: have the recipe flagged D, then use a case insensitive 
switch on the lines that should remain insensitive).
Alternatley, have a "sensitivity on" "sensitivty off" marker pair (and if 
we're going to introduce that, it'd make sense to ensure that the markers 
inherently support multiple flagging types, so that it can be easily 
extended in the future)?
The alternate BOL symbol would be doable - if that route is taken, the 
flags should have an explicit terminator:
+ BDjk + ^Subject:.*sometext

Thus, additional flags could be introduced without necessitating a 
rethinking of the approach.  In the above example, FLAGS preceed the second 
plus - if you were using a variable, it'd appear after the second plus, so 
letters wouldn't be confused.  Plus flagged recipe lines would ALWAYS have 
the plusses in pairs like that.
OR, rules could be:

** BDjk * ^Subject:.*sometext

The second asterisk appearing immedatley after the one at BOL would signify 
that this is the alternate type (or it could be a plus).  In this way, the 
basic "asterisk starts a condition" format would be retained, though it 
might lead to confusion with some users thinking it is a typo...

---
 Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering

 Procmail disclaimer: <http://www.professional.org/procmail/disclaimer.html>
 Please DO NOT carbon me on list replies.  I'll get my copy from the list.

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