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

Sean answered,

| Let me clarify: I wasn't saying that the "/D" was necessarily
| LITERAL.

I didn't think it was; I was just saying that any indicator appearing at EOL
would fail to make older binaries puke, as you agreed:

| The problem, as I alluded to, is that even if earlier procmails don't puke
| on the syntax and instead just return FALSE for the regexp, they'll return
| TRUE when you INVERT the condition, which will lead to troubles, thus,
| silent syntax failures with pre-extension procmails isn't really a
| desirable trait - people won't immediatley be alerted to the fact that the
| recipe isn't going to work as expected

I can't imagine, though, what possible string as an indicator at EOL would
solve that problem by making older binaries puke instead of happily taking
it as a pattern.  That's why I have little hope for doing it with an
indicator at EOL.

| (of course, everyone thoroughly tests new rulesets in a
| sandbox before making a ruleset live, so this shouldn't be a problem,
| right? <g>).

Not everyone can set up sandboxes, unfortunately, but that's another issue.

| # or ('|') flag not ACTUAL valid flag at current time - this is merely an
| # example for discussion.

As long as it isn't `O' nor `o'; we have enough trouble now with people
typing :O or :o instead of :0.

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