This syntax makes the rule parse more complicated, given the way it
works now. Though it is a little nicer because it makes it clearer that
something like:
rawbody A /rule1/
and header A /rule2/
will not work as expected.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 13:40, Greg Ward wrote:
> On 21 February 2002, Craig Hughes said:
> > I had been thinking about creating a "multiple-rule" format for rules,
> > where in order to match a rule, you would have to match a sequence of
> > regexes, eg:
> >
> > rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY /_{30,}/
> > and rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY /[^<][A-Za-z][A-Za-z]+.{1,15}?\s+_{30,}/
>
> A nicer way to spell this might be
>
> rawbody ASCII_FORM_ENTRY /_{30,}/ &&
> /[^<][A-Za-z][A-Za-z]+.{1,15}?\s+_{30,}/
>
> (I'm not proposing this be eval'd as Perl code; I think that "&&" should
> be recognized by the rule parser instead.)
>
> Greg
> --
> Greg Ward - software developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> MEMS Exchange http://www.mems-exchange.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spamassassin-talk mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
>
>
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
