Re: reply_regexp question

2001-11-13 Thread darren chamberlain
Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on 11/09/2001: > On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:32:33PM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote: > > > > I'd be willing to bet that perl's implementation of regex is starkly > > different than mutt's. > > mutts regexp == POSIX? > Is it gnu or cl

Re: reply_regexp question

2001-11-09 Thread Rob 'Feztaa' Park
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 10:09:42AM +0100, Magnus Bodin (dis)graced my inbox with: > On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:32:33PM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote: > > > > I'd be willing to bet that perl's implementation of regex is starkly > > different than mutt's. > > mutts regexp == POSIX? > Is it gnu o

Re: reply_regexp question

2001-11-09 Thread Magnus Bodin
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:32:33PM -0700, Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote: > > I'd be willing to bet that perl's implementation of regex is starkly > different than mutt's. mutts regexp == POSIX? Is it gnu or classic Henry Spencer? /magnus

Re: reply_regexp question

2001-11-08 Thread Rob 'Feztaa' Park
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 11:08:30PM -0300, Robson Braga Araujo (dis)graced my inbox with: > > If you are testing $reply_regexp: It's case *insensitive*. So just > > write "re" instead of "[Rr][Ee]". Maybe this helps you to find the > > error. > > I know, I wrote it in perl to test and then cut

Re: reply_regexp question

2001-11-08 Thread Robson Braga Araujo
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 11:50:00PM +0100, Volker Moell wrote: > Robson Braga Araujo wrote: > > > > I would like to know why a regular expression like > > '^(\[[^]]+\] *[Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)|([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *\[[^]]+\] >*)(([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)?(\[[^]]+\] *)?)*' > > does not work

Re: reply_regexp question

2001-11-08 Thread Volker Moell
Robson Braga Araujo wrote: > > I would like to know why a regular expression like > '^(\[[^]]+\] *[Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)|([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *\[[^]]+\] >*)(([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)?(\[[^]]+\] *)?)*' > does not work in mutt. If you are testing $reply_regexp: It's case *insensitive*. S

reply_regexp question

2001-11-08 Thread Robson Braga Araujo
Hi, I would like to know why a regular expression like '^(\[[^]]+\] *[Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)|([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *\[[^]]+\] *)(([Rr][Ee](\[[0-9]+\])?: *)?(\[[^]]+\] *)?)*' does not work in mutt. I tested it using perl and it worked perfectly matching the list and the Re: part of the subje

Old reply_regexp question

2001-11-04 Thread Sweth Chandramouli
I often get mail from people whose corporate mail server appends some type of disclaimer to their outgoing mail and then rewrites the Subject line of those messages with "(See Notice Below)" appended to it. This means, however, that a reply from one of those people to a message from me wi