On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 04:28:53PM -0500, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 16:17:00 -0500, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote:
> > but mutt also processes backslashes when it is parsing the command line
> > defining the expresion -- so you may need to quote the backslashes.
>
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 06:50:30AM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> OK, I see what I'm missing now: it's the "m" vs "mx". You're right,
> getting the regex right for this one will be enough -- for now. But
> it turns out that more than one site uses m.*.com hostnames, so
> you'll be back in this p
* On 10 Dec 2014, John Long wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 05:08:22PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> > * On 09 Dec 2014, John Long wrote:
> > > The messages seem to all have message-ids in the form
> > >
> > > bunchofch...@m.something.com
> >
> > You'll need to be much more specific if you
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 04:17:00PM -0500, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 20:39:16 +, John Long wrote:
> > score '~i @m\..*\.com' -
> >
> > matches on
> >
> > Message-ID: <5486ad9f.8186460a.0aee.1...@mx.google.com>
>
> You want the actual regex
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 05:08:22PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> * On 09 Dec 2014, John Long wrote:
> > The messages seem to all have message-ids in the form
> >
> > bunchofch...@m.something.com
>
> You'll need to be much more specific if you want help writing a matching
> regex. Is "some
* On 09 Dec 2014, John Long wrote:
> The messages seem to all have message-ids in the form
>
> bunchofch...@m.something.com
You'll need to be much more specific if you want help writing a matching
regex. Is "something" a semantic variable or literal? What does
"bunchofchars" look like?
>From
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 16:17:00 -0500, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote:
> but mutt also processes backslashes when it is parsing the command line
> defining the expresion -- so you may need to quote the backslashes.
(Here's the explaination of this topic from the mutt manual, near the
bottom of th
Hi, answers within
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:53:50PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> * On 09 Dec 2014, John Long wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:54:59AM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:15:13AM +, John Long wrote:
> >
> > > In your RE expression you have two l
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 20:39:16 +, John Long wrote:
> score '~i @m\..*\.com'-
>
> matches on
>
> Message-ID: <5486ad9f.8186460a.0aee.1...@mx.google.com>
You want the actual regex to contain backslashed period characters...
but mutt also processes backslashes when it
* On 09 Dec 2014, John Long wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:54:59AM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:15:13AM +, John Long wrote:
>
> > In your RE expression you have two literal periods (m. and
> > .com) plus one meta-period (.*). One of the literal periods
> > is
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:54:59AM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:15:13AM +, John Long wrote:
> In your RE expression you have two literal periods (m. and
> .com) plus one meta-period (.*). One of the literal periods
> is escaped (\.com) the other is not.
>
> Both lit
Thank you I will try this. Waiting for new spam to show up.
> In your RE expression you have two literal periods (m. and
> .com) plus one meta-period (.*). One of the literal periods
> is escaped (\.com) the other is not.
>
> Both literal periods should be the same (escaped or not escaped)
> and
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:15:13AM +, John Long wrote:
> The pron spammers are at it again on a bunch of email lists I subscribe
> to. I noticed most if not all of this reprehensible lot is using mail hosts
> that use email addresses and also generate a message-id in the form of
> Obnoxious Spa
The pron spammers are at it again on a bunch of email lists I subscribe
to. I noticed most if not all of this reprehensible lot is using mail hosts
that use email addresses and also generate a message-id in the form of
Obnoxious Spammer
I have tried a few combinations but nothing works properly.
(well, there is a typo in first line - '' at
the and, and should be ', but that's not important).
Of course, I would still love to see regexp matching performance fixed
for cases with multiple matches.
The simplest thing I tried so far is:
color body color179 default "a&quo
On śro, maj 08, 2013 at 09:24:12 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> Does it take this long with the simplified regexp above, or only
> your more complicated ones? It is possibly to accidentally write
> quite expensive regexps.
Yes. It is slow even with simpler regexps.
It looks like if t
ry now and then I get email that is rather large (64kB), and it
| contains many urls (~ 900).
| And in this case - displaying such mail takes long time (6-8 seconds).
Does it take this long with the simplified regexp above, or only
your more complicated ones? It is possibly to accidentally w
Hi,
I have this rule in my muttrc:
color body color163 default "(http|https|ftp)://"
(this is simplified version, I was checking if there are no problems
when using more complicated things).
And it works fine.
But - every now and then I get email that is rather large (64kB), and it
contains many
On (06/05/13 16:04), Rado Q put forth the proposition:
=- David Woodfall wrote on Mon 6.May'13 at 13:04:38 +0100 -=
>I have:
>
>set folder=imaps://blackswan/
>folder-hook bleah "source ~/.mutt/bleah"
>
>
>blackswan being the dovecot server hostname.
>.mutt/bleah contains:
>
>set from="me "
>
On (06/05/13 16:04), Rado Q put forth the proposition:
=- David Woodfall wrote on Mon 6.May'13 at 13:04:38 +0100 -=
>I have:
>
>set folder=imaps://blackswan/
>folder-hook bleah "source ~/.mutt/bleah"
>
>
>blackswan being the dovecot server hostname.
>.mutt/bleah contains:
>
>set from="me "
>
=- David Woodfall wrote on Mon 6.May'13 at 13:04:38 +0100 -=
> >I have:
> >
> >set folder=imaps://blackswan/
> >folder-hook bleah "source ~/.mutt/bleah"
> >
> >
> >blackswan being the dovecot server hostname.
> >.mutt/bleah contains:
> >
> >set from="me "
> >set sendmail="/usr/bin/sendmail"
> >
>
On (06/05/13 12:55), David Woodfall put forth the
proposition:
I seem to be having a problem with folder-hook.
I have:
set folder=imaps://blackswan/
set spoolfile=imaps://blackswan/
folder-hook bleah "source ~/.mutt/bleah"
blackswan being the dovecot server hostname.
.mutt/bleah contains:
I seem to be having a problem with folder-hook.
I have:
set folder=imaps://blackswan/
set spoolfile=imaps://blackswan/
folder-hook bleah "source ~/.mutt/bleah"
blackswan being the dovecot server hostname.
.mutt/bleah contains:
set from="me "
set sendmail="/usr/bin/sendmail"
The folder-hook i
On 03Apr2012 12:24, m...@raf.org wrote:
| Cameron Simpson wrote:
| > You need double backslashes because two things are happening.
| > [...snip...]
|
| the best computing advice i've ever had was:
| "Double the number of backslashes!"
| - John Mackin
John "Iron Bar" Mackin?
| he didn't even
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 12:24:54PM +1000, m...@raf.org wrote:
> Cameron Simpson wrote:
>
> > You need double backslashes because two things are happening.
> > [...snip...]
>
> the best computing advice i've ever had was:
>
> "Double the number of backslashes!"
> - John Mackin
>
> he didn't
* On 02 Apr 2012, steve wrote:
>
> \\<(e|E)tch\\>
>
> does exactly was I was looking for.
By way of explanation: the catch here is that because of mutt's parsing
rules with quotations, this expression is scanned twice and needs to
have the backslashes themselves escaped. You'll find this often
Cameron Simpson wrote:
> You need double backslashes because two things are happening.
> [...snip...]
the best computing advice i've ever had was:
"Double the number of backslashes!"
- John Mackin
he didn't even know what my problem was when he said it but he was right.
if it doesn't fix y
Dear mutt users,
Thanks for all of your replies.
\\<(e|E)tch\\>
does exactly was I was looking for.
Have a nice day,
Steve
On 02Apr2012 16:16, Gary Johnson wrote:
| On 2012-04-02, steve wrote:
| > I'm trying to write a regexp in order to capture some words to put them
| > in color. I have a line like this in my .muttrc:
| >
| > color body red default
"\|((L|l)enny)|((S|s)queeze)|(
steve schrieb am 02.04.2012 um 22:01 (+0200):
>
> I'm trying to write a regexp in order to capture some words to put
> them in color. I have a line like this in my .muttrc:
>
> color body red default
> "\|((L|l)enny)|((S|s)queeze)|((S|s)arge)|((P|p)otato)"
&g
On 2012-04-02, steve wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to write a regexp in order to capture some words to put them
> in color. I have a line like this in my .muttrc:
>
> color body red default
> "\|((L|l)enny)|((S|s)queeze)|((S|s)arge)|((P|p)otato)"
>
> I
Hi,
I'm trying to write a regexp in order to capture some words to put them
in color. I have a line like this in my .muttrc:
color body red default
"\|((L|l)enny)|((S|s)queeze)|((S|s)arge)|((P|p)otato)"
I want to catch only etch, but not fetch nor fetchera (or whatever
combinati
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 04:43:30PM -0600, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
> This has come up before; I could be wrong, but I thought the general
> consensus was that ncurses won't do the whole line, while slang does.
> Maybe I'm imagining things, though ;)
no - the issue (for mutt/ncurses) is whether mu
--VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Alas! Thomas Dickey spake thus:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 02:35:34PM -0700, John Iverson wrote:
> > I think he means that this command is only coloring to the end
t just for the header alone, but the whole line
> > > should have the same bg color?? How is this possible??
> >
> > color header fg bg regexp
>
> I think he means that this command is only coloring to the end of
> the last word in the header and not all the way to th
olor?? How is this possible??
>
> color header fg bg regexp
I think he means that this command is only coloring to the end of
the last word in the header and not all the way to the end of the
line on his screen. I noticed this behavior before, too, and
when I switched from ncurses to s-lang
* V_Suresh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-07-25 08:09]:
> How do I set the bg/fg color for the whole line, for a particular
> header field?? Not just for the header alone, but the whole line
> should have the same bg color?? How is this possible??
color header fg bg regexp
Hi,
* Mark [02-07-10 20:10:11 +0200] wrote:
> I want to save a copy of each message I send saved into
> the current folder. Didn't think this would work:
> folder-hook (.) set record=$1
> and it didn't.
What I recently picked up (didn't know it before): One may
use printf()-style sequences
I want to save a copy of each message I send saved into the current
folder. Didn't think this would work:
folder-hook (.) set record=$1
and it didn't.
I'd also like a second copy saved into a 'sent-mail' folder.
Thanks for the help!
--
Mark
sl' =adsl-List
> on a single line, preferably with writing out each regexp only once?
> Can at least the last 2 lines be combined into 1?
hmm... - does this list rewrite the sender
thus sending all mails as "From: majordomo"?
in that case replace the maillist software!
however, if
Is it possible to combine
fcc-save-hook (.*adsl.*@(lists.|)unixathome.org) =adsl-List
fcc-save-hook '~f [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~s adsl' =adsl-List
fcc-save-hook '~t [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~s adsl' =adsl-List
on a single line, preferably with writing out each regexp only once?
Can
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
wrote Louis-David Mitterrand thusly...
>
> After much struggle understanding mutt's quoting rules I finally came up
> with that kind of stuff, which works:
>
> folder-hook =[a-z] score ~s'([ot]\\|newbie\\|off-topic\\|your\\\
>mail\\|(unidentified\\|no)\\\
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 02:33:35PM +0100, Volker Moell wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > trying to color entries in the index matching on the from field, I use
> > the following:
> >
> > color index blue black '~f (Person1|Person2)'
> >
> > However, I get a 'parentheses not matched error'
>
> Try:
> co
Scott wrote:
> trying to color entries in the index matching on the from field, I use
> the following:
>
> color index blue black '~f (Person1|Person2)'
>
> However, I get a 'parentheses not matched error'
Try:
color index blue black '~f "(Person1|Person2)"'
^
Hi all,
trying to color entries in the index matching on the from field, I use the following:
color index blue black '~f (Person1|Person2)'
However, I get a 'parentheses not matched error'
Also, the example in the doco: ~f ("Jim +Somebody"|"Ed +SomeoneElse") doesn't work
(same error).
TIA,
Sc
* Rob Reid ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At 2:35 PM EST on February 23 Thomas Hurst sent off:
> > Easy, just run it through something that gives more detailed errors:
> >
> > test.rb:2: invalid regular expression; there's no previous pattern,
> > to which '*' would define cardinality at 2:
>
> Can
and (&) and
possibly the comma so that they are literally those rather then special
characters.
The ampersand is a global reset command for the variables according to
the manual.
> The error message: Wrong RegExp in Line ...
--
Knute
You live, You die. Enjoy the interval!
-- Clarence
msg24734/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
which '*' would define cardinality at 2:
|
| Can you tell us specifically what "something" is?
Hmm. Ruby? (Guessing from extension.) Perl might do well too:
Eg:
perl -e '/regexp-goes-here/'
and see if it explodes.
--
Cameron Simpson, DoD#743[EMAIL PR
At 2:35 PM EST on February 23 Thomas Hurst sent off:
> * Michael Seiwert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > mutt detects an error in one of the following lines but I can't find
> > an error maybe you see the error.
> >
> > color body redblack "(*)(ACK|R...
>
> Easy, just run it throug
--PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Alas! Thomas Hurst spake thus:
> In other words, (*) is meaningless, since the * doesn't have anything to
> attach to (did you mean .* ?)
I think he meant "\*".
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
wrote Thomas Hurst thusly...
>
> * Michael Seiwert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > mutt detects an error in one of the following lines but I can't find
> > an error maybe you see the error.
> >
> > color body redblack "(*)(ACK|ROTFL|LO
* Michael Seiwert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> mutt detects an error in one of the following lines but I can't find
> an error maybe you see the error.
>
> color body green black "((;|:|8\\:|\\=)(-|=|~|_|-'|%|<|)(\\)|Q|P|\\)%))"
>
> color body redblack "(*)(ACK
WIW|g|G|b
g|vbg|GIWIST|G,D&R|HHOK|HTH|HTHBE|IMHO|IMNSHO|IOW|IRL|ITRW|OTP|OTF|OIC|OTOH|POV|RL|R
TFM|ROTFL|TTFN|TTYL|U|WAEF|Y|TIMTOWTDI)(*)"
The error message: Wrong RegExp in Line ...
Regards
Michael
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:53:36AM +0530, Prahlad Vaidyanathan wrote:
> > manual.txt coming with mutt ;-)
> Well, that doesn't have anything on what scoring is, and why one would
> use it, does it ? or do I have the abridged version ? ;-)
ah ... you're right. Isn't there something on the internet?
Hi,
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 Christian Ordig spewed into the ether:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:19:01PM +0530, Prahlad Vaidyanathan wrote:
> > Is anyone here an 'active scorer' ? Do point us mortals to some good
> > docs please ;-)
> manual.txt coming with mutt ;-)
Well, that doesn't have anything o
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:55:39 +0100
> From: Cliff Sarginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Mutt Users' List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Negative scores and regexp questions
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:23:51PM +0100, Christian Ordig wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:19:01PM +0530, Prahlad Vaidyanathan wrote:
> Is anyone here an 'active scorer' ? Do point us mortals to some good
> docs please ;-)
manual.txt coming with mutt ;-)
--
Christian Ordig
Germany
Hi,
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 David T-G spewed into the ether:
[-- snip --]
> I'm in the same boat, in fact :-) What we really need is for active
> scorers to reply!
From what you say it seems like a real neat idea, but unfortunately I
haven't found any docs on it (Maybe I just haven't looked hard en
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:55:39PM +0100, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> > That's the point. Imagine someone you don't really care about.
>
> Ok, that is a good explanation.
> It still does sound a little complex (since you have been the only
> "active" scorer to reply so far, it does not seem widely u
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:23:51PM +0100, Christian Ordig wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:00:36AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> > I'm in the same boat, in fact :-) What we really need is for active
> > scorers to reply!
> ok. here I is one ...
> >
> > If you tried to implement all of that, with
Thus spake Cliff Sarginson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> How is that better than other filtering techniques? What you say
> sounds plausible, but is it the whole story ?
I don't use scoring, but you could do things a little more particular to
Mutt than just folder filtering, such as _marking_ for dele
Cliff, et al --
...and then Cliff Sarginson said...
%
% On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 08:22:04PM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
% > On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:07:59AM +0100, Cliff Sarginson (dis)graced my inbox
with:
% > > I still feel very dumb on this.
% > > Can someone explain to an idiot what th
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 08:22:04PM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:07:59AM +0100, Cliff Sarginson (dis)graced my inbox with:
> > I still feel very dumb on this.
> > Can someone explain to an idiot what the scoring is for
> > and how you use it.
> > The manual assumes y
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:07:59AM +0100, Cliff Sarginson (dis)graced my inbox with:
> I still feel very dumb on this.
> Can someone explain to an idiot what the scoring is for
> and how you use it.
> The manual assumes you know.
> I assume it is some kind of super-filtering technique.
I don't ac
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:19:33AM +0100, Christian Ordig wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 06:43:04PM +0200, Stefan Frank wrote:
> > Does that mean, that I have to add a "default score" to all received
> > messages before I can delete them (or mark them read) by score?
> yes, I think so.
> add:
>
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 06:43:04PM +0200, Stefan Frank wrote:
> Does that mean, that I have to add a "default score" to all received
> messages before I can delete them (or mark them read) by score?
yes, I think so.
add:
score ~A 5000
as your first scoring rule and everything should be fine (or
Hi,
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
[-- snip --]
>
> Try:
> set quote_regexp="^([ ?]*([|:}#]|>{1,3} |[A-Z]{2,3}>))+"
>
> it should do what you want. Note that it won't consider the part a
> quote at all, but that's what you have to give up if you want mutt to
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 03:33:36PM +0530, Prahlad Vaidyanathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
[...]
> > set quote_regexp="^([ ?]*([|:}#]|>{1,3} |[A-Z]{2,3}>))+"
The "?" should really be "\t" here. Probably the default should be
changed t
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 12:23:15PM +0530, Prahlad Vaidyanathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, but I tried something like this before, and the problem
> remains. The problem is, it colours
> the super-quoted lines in the colour assigned to 'quoted1'
> (brightblack in my case), and not 'quoted
Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:19:40 +0530
Hi,
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 Suresh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
[-- snip --]
> set quote_regexp="^([A-Za-z ]+>|[]%>:|}-][]>:|}-]*)"
Thanks, but I tried something like this before, and the problem
remains. The problem is, it colours
the super-quoted lines in the
Prahlad Vaidyanathan [10/11/01 22:43 +0530]:
> "HP" Harry Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> HP> blah blah blah
> HP> blah blah blah
> HP> blah blah blah
Yuck. Hate it. Especially when the supercite chews up ~ 10 characters
(quite often) from an 80 column display, mangling t
Sat, 10 Nov 2001 22:38:25 +0530
Hi,
I get quite a few mails from people who use super-quotes (mostly VM
users).ie, replies look like this :
"HP" Harry Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
HP> blah blah blah
HP> blah blah blah
HP> blah blah blah
I don't know how to set the 'q
Kyle Knack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on 08/08/2001:
> I've finally figured out that 'reverse_name' isn't working because my
> alternates line isn't matching properly. I have it written as:
> set alternates =
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL P
* Drew Raines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> set alternates="[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> My alternates setting works fine that way.
In addition, I have my '@' symbols escaped.
set alternates="phineas\@only-linux.com|skwerl\@telocity
--
Drew
* Kyle Knack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Apparently that doesn't work well (even with the '.' escaped), nor does:
> set alternates =
> "(phineas@only-linux|skwerl@telocity|skwerl@eathlink|skerl-0@home)" with
> or without quotes.
Try removing the parentheses:
set alternates="[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EM
I've finally figured out that 'reverse_name' isn't working because my
alternates line isn't matching properly. I have it written as:
set alternates =
([EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Apparently that doesn't work well (even with the '.' escaped), nor does:
At Fri, Jun 29 2001 [09:31 -0400], Dan Boger aroused my curiosity with:
> >from the mutt manual:
>
> 3.20. Message Scoring
>
> ...
>
> Negative final scores are rounded up to 0.
Oops, I haven't read this sentence - sorry.
Does that mean, that I have to add a "default score" to all r
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 03:05:13PM +0200, Stefan Frank wrote:
> I have two problems with scores in mutt. Whenever the score of a message
> is negative, %N in the "index_format" shows zero and the settings in
> "score_threshold_delete" and "score_threshold_read" will never match.
from the mutt man
Hello,
I have two problems with scores in mutt. Whenever the score of a message
is negative, %N in the "index_format" shows zero and the settings in
"score_threshold_delete" and "score_threshold_read" will never match.
Example 1:
score '~s foo' 10
score '~f [EMAIL PROTECTED]' -100
If the messa
and typed:
> Can anyone tell me how I can force the following regexp match *only* concatenated
> substrings *not* the individual substrings as well as the concatenated ones!?
> From my understanding, once the whole regexp is in parentheses it should match each
> individual substrin
Can anyone tell me how I can force the following regexp match *only* concatenated
substrings *not* the individual substrings as well as the concatenated ones!?
From my understanding, once the whole regexp is in parentheses it should match each
individual substring together as a concatenated
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 03:55:59PM +0200, HEGEDUS Ferenc wrote:
>
> Error in /h/d/dark/.muttrc, line 98: Invalid range end
>
It has something to do with locales. If you use LANG='C' it doesn't give
error about the range end.
Regards,
Z.
--
^ { Peter BARABAS } { [EMAIL PROTECTED] } { [EMAIL
Hi
I have a following line in my .muttrc:
color body blue black [a-z]
This causes:
Error in /h/d/dark/.muttrc, line 98: Invalid range end
This regex only work if i writing [a-b]
Why? I tried " ' \ characters a lot. :)
Thanks.
d
Ps: Mutt 1.3.15i (2001-02-12), debian woody
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 12:15:25PM -0500, Rich Lafferty wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 08:21:28AM -0500, Josh Huber ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > * ^TO_about.com
> >
> > the TO_ is expanded to a nice regex which matches the proper text
> > before an address.
>
> Everyone keeps saying thi
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 08:21:28AM -0500, Josh Huber ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> * ^TO_about.com
>
> the TO_ is expanded to a nice regex which matches the proper text
> before an address.
Everyone keeps saying this, and it still doesn't work. That nice regex
doesn't match the text *in* an ad
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 04:21:30PM -0500, Josh Huber wrote:
> The reasoning behind this is:
>
> > > * ^To: .*about.com.*
>
> ...often addresses are formatted in a way like:
>
> John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> or
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Doe)
>
> but are not that often just the email address al
Bruce A. Petro wrote (about a procmail condition):
> I understand the leading .* based on your remark, but what about the
> trailing .* ??
You can safely omit it. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever with
regard to matching.
/HW
gt;are hard to translate when you are just starting out like me.
:
: "man 5 regexp" on HP-UX
: "man grep" or "man ed" on almost all systems
: The info. in info on a GNU system (e.g., GNU/Linux) is usually
: helpful, or failing that, the info within GNUEmacs (providing t
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:21:58PM -0500, Bruce A. Petro wrote:
>Can you point me to some book or doc or man that says things in fairly
>plain english as you did??? I'm finding a lot of docs on regexps that
>are hard to translate when you are just starting out like me.
"man
ultra
cautious to get everything possible?
THANKS AGAIN!
Bruce.
On Sat, Feb 17 03:58AM, Nollaig MacKenzie wrote:
>
> On 2001.02.16 23:23:57, you,
> the extraordinary Bruce A. Petro, opined:
>
> >
> > Hi - I'm new at regexp's and don't know how to do this..
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:21:58PM -0500, Bruce A. Petro wrote:
> Many thanks!
> Can you point me to some book or doc or man that says things in fairly
> plain english as you did??? I'm finding a lot of docs on regexps that
> are hard to translate when you are just starting out like me. They
> d
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:32:32AM -0600 or thereabouts, Aaron Schrab wrote:
> At 19:38 -0600 17 Feb 2001, Gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 10:56:03AM -0600, Gary wrote:
>
> > > >:O:
> > > >* (^(To|Cc):*@about.com*)
> > > >about.com
>
> > can think of a few more way
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 07:38:08PM -0600, Gary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:05:22PM -0500 or thereabouts, Joe Philipps wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 10:56:03AM -0600, Gary wrote:
> > >On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:23:57PM -0500 or thereabouts, Bruce A. Petro wrote:
>
At 19:38 -0600 17 Feb 2001, Gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 10:56:03AM -0600, Gary wrote:
> > >:O:
> > >* (^(To|Cc):*@about.com*)
> > >about.com
> can think of a few more ways too. The above has worked for me well over
> the years.
I can't see how that could possib
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:05:22PM -0500 or thereabouts, Joe Philipps wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 10:56:03AM -0600, Gary wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:23:57PM -0500 or thereabouts, Bruce A. Petro wrote:
> >> :0:
> >> * ^[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> about.com
> >In Procmail, these are calle
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 10:56:03AM -0600, Gary wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:23:57PM -0500 or thereabouts, Bruce A. Petro wrote:
>
>> Hi - I'm new at regexp's and don't know how to do this...
>>
>> :0:
>> * ^[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> about.com
>
>In Procmail, these are called recipes. Try this, w
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:23:57PM -0500 or thereabouts, Bruce A. Petro wrote:
> Hi - I'm new at regexp's and don't know how to do this...
> The main question is from procmail regexp I did that is
> not working. I want it to find all mail where the TO:
> con
Hi - I'm new at regexp's and don't know how to do this...
The main question is from procmail regexp I did that is
not working. I want it to find all mail where the TO:
contains "@about.com" ("[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Any suggestions why its not wo
Heya muttsters-
side note it seems every day i find a new facet to mutt, tweaking it
is becomming one of my fave stress relievers =)
issue: One of the mailing lists I'm on has two domains
merit.edu
nanog.org
i have
save-hook "~C nanog@(nanog|merit)\.(edu|org)" +nanog
as the epxression,
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 09:48:08AM -0600, freix wrote:
> issue: One of the mailing lists I'm on has two domains
> merit.edu
> nanog.org
>
> i have
>
> save-hook "~C nanog@(nanog|merit)\.(edu|org)" +nanog
>
> as the epxression, and when i start mutt it says:
> Error in /home/freix/.muttrc, lin
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
