in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote John Iverson thusly... > > * On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, parv wrote: > > > all these can be easily combined as one OR'd recipe (assuming mbox)... > > > > :0: > > * 2147483647^0 ^TOmutt-users@mail\.sonytel\.be > > * 2147483647^0 ^TOmutt(-dev|-users)?@(ns.)?gbnet\.net > > * 2147483647^0 ^TOmutt(-dev|-users)?@.*(cs\.hmc\.edu|mutt\.org|yahoogroups\.com) > > # ---- > > # below is the obvious combination of above two... > > #* 2147483647^0 >^TOmutt(-dev|-users)?@((ns.)?gbnet\.net|.*(cs\.hmc\.edu|mutt\.org|yahoogroups\.com)) > > # ---- > > IN.MUTT > > Why not Just use the regular OR operator?:
when one has to debug complex recipe (as procmail doesn't say what was actually matched), or during the creation of one, it's much easier to work w/ weighted recpie as one can easily (un)comment & test. in addition, if both ^TO and ^TO_ had been used, it would be easier to notice the difference in the weighted recipe. so, maintainance is another issue. and another reason: there is more than one way to do it. > :0 > * ^TOmutt(-dev|-users)?@(ns.)?gbnet.net|\ > ^[EMAIL PROTECTED]|\ > ^TOmutt(-dev|-users)?@.*(cs.hmc.edu|mutt.org|yahoogroups.com) > IN.MUTT for trivial/short/simple conditions, i do prefer the above, but then why use multiple ^TO's... :0: #* ^TO(mutt(-dev|-users)?@(ns\.)?gbnet\.net|\ #mutt-users@mail\.sonytel\.be|\ #mutt(-dev|-users)?@.*(cs\.hmc\.edu|mutt\.org|yahoogroups\.com)) # * ^TO(mutt(-dev|-users)?@((ns\.)?gbnet\.net|\ .*(cs\.hmc\.edu|mutt\.org|yahoogroups\.com))|\ mutt-users@mail\.sonytel\.be) IN.MUTT - parv --
