On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 11:33:29AM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
>
> Well, if you do like many hackers, and try to make a "clever" regexp,
> it's probably going to be hard to read. But there's no reason you can't
> just make a "simple" regexp that does the same thing.
> set alternates='^(fox|david|cretin)@(convex|hp).com)$"
But doesn't that seem like such a kludge? I mean, it isn't even
"standard" with the rest of mutt. For example, I can setup mailboxes
like:
mailboxes =drdre
mailboxes =snoopdogg
... etc etc
And the same goes for lists.
Why (rhetorical question) can't I do it with alternates?
For example:
alternates dre@chronic\.net
alternates snoop@lbc\.ca.us
... etc etc
Does that just look much cleaner? It would still allow the use of
regexes. Even if it meant a performance decrease in comparsion to a
carefully crafed, single regex, i'd rather use something that I can
read.
--
==============================
Nathan Cullen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
==============================
