On Tuesday, Jan 7, 2003, at 05:22 Canada/Mountain, dman(_at_)nomotek(_dot_)com
wrote:
procmail(_at_)deliberate(_dot_)net wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 05:05:07 -0500 (EST), dman(_at_)nomotek(_dot_)com wrote:
=> You do *not* control the header once you send it back into
"space,"
Excellent point IMO and probably overlooked by many
(including myself). Thanks.
Welcome. (Don't recall ever before having written so many exclamation
marks in a note to this list.) :-)
OK. Point taken. I will shut up now. :)
(Hey, still learning here!)
[-- oh, and I use the former often despite one friend's comment that
"(.*\<)?" looks like about the ugliest smiley he's ever seen].
Looks sorta like a Cyclops with a broken nose if you tilt left or a
angy unibrow with a snaggle tooth if you tilt to the right.
So I weigh it against the disadvantage of
the inherent looseness in "(.*\<)?" (there could be text in there,
after all, or a line-end), each time I choose to use it.
what about (..*\<)? wouldn't that require at least one character that
was not a EOL?
(Oh, as for why I don't just use "[ ]", the reason is that I
can't see the tab, and when I copy-and-paste code, I tend to
lose it, as it gets automatically converted to spaces in my copy
buffer. And that syntax, too, always requires explanation for
lookers-on, so I see no strong advantage over a consciously
selected substitute style.)
One thing I really like about this list is messages like this one. Not
only am I learning stuff but it's presented in a sensible and
understandable way that doesn't involve the sort of "You're not part of
the "in" crowd if you don't know this" that I see on some other (no
names) techie lists.
--
Hey, baby, I've got just the cure for that penis envy back at my
apartment...
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail