On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Philip Guenther wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Received today from the Debian bug system.
> >(Note: The bug is against procmail-3.15.2).
> ...
> >I try to filter mail from addresses with more than 3 digits in the username,
> >since they are usually spam. I constructed the following recipie:
> >
> >:0
> >* ^From:.*([0-9][^0-9@ ]*){3,}@
> >spam
> >
> >This doesn't work. I've checked with egrep(1), and it matches just fine.
> >procmailrc(5) claims that "These regular expressions are completely
> >compatible
> >to the normal egrep(1) extended regular expressions", which is apparently
> >false.
>
> Ah, the joys of standardization. The original egrep didn't support {n,m}.
> Someone added such to their egrep and then POSIX apparently standardized
> it. Procmail doesn't implement {n,m}, so the above condition will need to
> be written as:
>
> * ^From:.*[0-9][^0-9@ ]*[0-9][^0-9@ ]*[0-9][^0-9@ ]*([0-9][^0-9@ ]*)*@
>
> Yeah, it's ugly, but ripping into the procmail regexp engine is low
> on my list. I'm going to treat this as a documentation bug for now
> and will update the docs to clarify that procmail is 'mostly' egrep
> compatible and the users should check the "Extended regular expressions"
> section of the procmailrc(5) manpage for an exact listing of which egrep
> meta-characters are supported. This is a less-than-perfect solution,
> but I don't have the time for the real one.
Any progress on this documentation bug?
It's 2007 now, and there has not been a new procmail release in five years.
If you have time and motivation, it would be very nice if you could
also take a look at the other bugs reported in debian against procmail:
http://bugs.debian.org/procmail
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
