On Sat, 25 May 2002 the voices made Bart Schaefer write:
> On Sat, 25 May 2002, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 25 May 2002 the voices made Bart Schaefer write:
> >
> > > On Sat, 25 May 2002, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> > >
> > > > header ADVERT_CODE Subject =~ /\bADV(ert|erti\
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2002 the voices made Bart Schaefer write:
>
> > On Sat, 25 May 2002, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> >
> > > header ADVERT_CODESubject =~ /\bADV(ert|erti\w*?)?:/i
> >
>
> > header ADVERT_CODE Subject =~ /\bADV(?:
On Sat, 25 May 2002 the voices made Bart Schaefer write:
> On Sat, 25 May 2002, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
>
> > Unless there's a "less is more"-thinking, I'd like to suggest:
> >
> > header ADVERT_CODE Subject =~ /\bADV(ert|erti\w*?)?:/i
> > describe ADVERT_CODESubject: c
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
> > That's not equivalent. Note the placement of the carat WRT the first
> > alternation in the original rule. It should be:
> >
> > /(?:^\s*|\s+)\[?(?:ADV|cc)[:\]]/i
>
> Wouldn't \b work as a substitute for the (?:^\s*|\s+)? or am I confused?
Dep
On Fri, 24 May 2002 the voices made Michael Moncur write:
> > That's not equivalent. Note the placement of the carat WRT the first
> > alternation in the original rule. It should be:
> >
> > /(?:^\s*|\s+)\[?(?:ADV|cc)[:\]]/i
>
> Wouldn't \b work as a substitute for the (?:^\s*|\s+)? or am I
> That's not equivalent. Note the placement of the carat WRT the first
> alternation in the original rule. It should be:
>
> /(?:^\s*|\s+)\[?(?:ADV|cc)[:\]]/i
Wouldn't \b work as a substitute for the (?:^\s*|\s+)? or am I confused?
> I don't think the cc: has anything to do with advert co
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Michael Moncur wrote:
> header ADVERT_CODE Subject =~ /(^\s*|\s+)ADV:/i
>
> and my suggested modification:
>
> header ADVERT_CODE Subject =~ /(?:^\s*|\s+|\[)(?:ADV|cc)[:\]]/i
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> That can be simplified a bi
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 07:38:00PM -0600, Michael Moncur wrote:
> The current ADVERT_CODE rule doesn't catch subjects that use the code [ADV]
> instead of ADV:. Here's the current rule:
>
> header ADVERT_CODE Subject =~ /(^\s*|\s+)ADV:/i
> describe ADVERT_CODESubject: con
On Friday 24 May 2002 06:38 pm, Michael Moncur wrote:
> /(?:^\s*|\s+|\[)(?:ADV|cc)[:\]]/i
That can be simplified a bit:
/^\s*\[?(?:ADV|cc)[:\]]/i
--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
ICQ: 132152059
The current ADVERT_CODE rule doesn't catch subjects that use the code [ADV]
instead of ADV:. Here's the current rule:
header ADVERT_CODE Subject =~ /(^\s*|\s+)ADV:/i
describe ADVERT_CODESubject: contains advertising tag
and my suggested modification:
header ADVERT_CODE
10 matches
Mail list logo
