On 03 Nov 2005, at 17:41 , Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 11/3/05, Google Kreme <gkreme(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
PCRE/better (modern) regex
Didn't we have a thread on this topic?
We did, the upshot of which was that it's unlikely ever to happen,
because too many existing procmailrc files contain
characters/sequences that would be misinterpreted if the regular
expression syntax were to change.
Oh, there are numerous ways around this:
PCRE=YES
:0p
are two I can think of.
Also keep in mind that the procmail rules for "greediness" of
expressions are different, and its expression engine has other
behavior that is tuned for stream-processing of email. It's far more
complex than just a matter of dropping in a different third-party
regex package.
:0
* Old style rules
PCRE=YES
:0
* PCRE rules
PCRE=NO
:0
* OLD Style Rules
Assuming someone could be found who was willing to rewrite procmail's
engine essentially from the ground up, it'd still be necessary for the
legacy behavior to be the default; in effect there'd be two engines,
and you'd need a new flag on each :0 line to tell procmail that the
extended syntax should be used for the conditions of the recipe (in
the way that the D flag tells procmail to be case-sensitive).
or it could be a compile time option, where you could make new regex
rules the default and have flags to enable the old method.
Doesn't matter HOW, the fact is the matching in procmail is very
limited for 2005. Heck, it's rather limited for 1995 :p
--
In other news, Gandalf died. -- Secret Diary of Boromir
____________________________________________________________
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