On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:58:44PM -0400, David T-G wrote:
> Andrew --
>
> I don't have an easy answer for your question, though procmail springs to
> mind for starters. You mentioned searching the manual; did you find
> $reply_regexp and see what you can do with it? It's pretty fancy...
Here's what I've tried so far:
# set reply_regexp="^(re([\[0-9\]+])*):[\t]*"
# set reply_regexp="^(re:)+[\t]*"
set reply_regexp="^(\[BOB\] )?(re: )+(\[BOB\] )?(re: )*"
...and that doesn't seem to solve the problem. One weird this is that the
default listed in the manual doesn't appear to adhere to the specification
for regexps in the manual.....
>
>
> :-D
> --
> David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles
> (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
> (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
> The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0.
> Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh*
>
