Heh, yeah. My syntax would make it seem that it would allow that. And
I agree that allowing that would be better. But allowing that would
mean more coding ;) I'll probably do it anyway...
C
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 14:20, Arpi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > 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.)
>
> I like Craig's method better, it allows having different type/area of rules,
> for example matching something in header and another in body, and hit only
> occurs if both rule matched. Anyway it's easier to parse, too.
>
>
> A'rpi / Astral & ESP-team
>
> --
> Developer of MPlayer, the Movie Player for Linux - http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
