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

-- 
 

Reply via email to