On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 02:02:35PM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
Toen wij Tristan Savatier kietelden, kwam er dit uit:
:(.*[^-a-zA-Z0-9_.])?)
the set is apparently meant to be the legal set of characters that
can be used in the left part of an email address.
Would it really look like that if it was meant as you apparently think?
In the man-page it says 'specific address', not 'rfc(2)822-compliant
e-mail address'.
Bingo. Supposing the macro is designed to find the local name, but
not to find plussed-addressing? In any case, I am not at all convinced
(by anything allegedly "obvious") that Stephen just, uh, plain forgot
about a few other characters, most notably the +.
(However, them macro doesn't limit itself as the implication suggests,
which I admit is weird. I'm tempted to test some old procmail builds to
see if they behaved differently with the macro results, but I don't have
time right now.)
^TO_hugs(_at_)foo\(_dot_)com[^-a-zA-Z0-9(_dot_)]?
A regex ending in an optional part, is better without that optional
part.
Yes.
I snipped enormous amount of dangling text, again! Please read some
texts about netiquette and quoting, before you reply again.
I've found the following link useful and sometimes refer people to it:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M16F51D39
--
dman
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail