* Jerome De Greef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-16 09:25]: > > % send-hook '~t .*' 'my_hdr From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' > > % send-hook !'~t .*' 'my_hdr From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' > > Does this work, or do you think it should? > > I'd expect that you'd need "..*" in your > > patterns instead of just ".*" 'cuz the former is > > "one character plus zero or more characters" > > while the latter still accepts none. > > > > Perhaps it works simply because there is a To: > > header to check versus one being absent; in that > > case, you can probably leave off the asterisk. > > It works as is. But you're right, I thought .* was > doing what ..* does. I'm not that good with regular > expressions. BTW, doesn't ..* do the same as .+ ?
"it depends". really - it all depends on the language you currently have available. The operator '+' might not be available at all. But the usual workaround for "1 or more times of X" is to use "XX*". Anyway, if you simply need a default rule for all addresses then you need to check for just only character in the address, right? Checking for more is simply superfluous. Also, the pattern in the "send-hook" command is applied to the addresses in TO/CC, anyway, so all you need is to give part of the address: send-hook . 'my_hdr From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' send-hook ! . 'my_hdr From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' this should work. untested, though. Sven [who always sends with a replyable address] -- Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] MUTT SETUP TIPS: http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/mutt/setup.html MUTT HOOKS EXAMPLE: send-hook . 'set signature="~/.sig.mine"' send-hook guckes 'set signature=""'
