http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4793
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-02-15 03:22 ------- (In reply to comment #7) > > but \W is a character > > Am I misunderstanding? I thought \w was a word-character, so \W was not (a > word character). Therefore \W\w would be somewhat equivalent to \b\w. You are correct in the meaning of \w and \W, however \W requires there to be a character. \b is the space between a \W and a \w, ie: zero-width, and includes the start and end of the line. > I'm not happy with trading limitations. How about going to something similar > to the way a shell might handle something like this, and include some parends > when necessary? So if someone REALLY wants the cojoined "CONTACT_" with the > mythical _ADDRESS_ you might do CONTACT_(_ADDRESS_). (It seems much more I really don't want to change what we currently accept and kluge in some way to solve the immediate request that will cause us problems down the road. For example, I can definitely see people wanting to use "(_TAG_)" and leave the parens in place. For instance, from the standard config: add_header all Checker-Version SpamAssassin _VERSION_ (_SUBVERSION_) on _HOSTNAME_ > Or on rereading your comment, what the user might want was > [EMAIL PROTECTED], which would also work. well, my example was a bit contrived. the point is that I don't want to trade one limitation for another just because we can. if we change to requiring /\b_SOMETHING_\b/, someone will come along and request to be able to do "FOO_SOMETHING_BAR" and we'll be back here again. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
