* Sven Guckes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > * Jerome De Greef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-16 09:25]: > > > % send-hook '~t .*' 'my_hdr From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' > > > % send-hook !'~t .*' 'my_hdr From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' > > > Does this work, or do you think it should? > > > I'd expect that you'd need "..*" in your > > > patterns instead of just ".*" 'cuz the former is > > > "one character plus zero or more characters" > > > while the latter still accepts none. > > > > > > Perhaps it works simply because there is a To: > > > header to check versus one being absent; in that > > > case, you can probably leave off the asterisk. > > > > It works as is. But you're right, I thought .* was > > doing what ..* does. I'm not that good with regular > > expressions. BTW, doesn't ..* do the same as .+ ? > > "it depends". really - it all depends on > the language you currently have available.
I was talking about Mutt ;) > The operator '+' might not be available at all. > But the usual workaround for "1 or more times > of X" is to use "XX*". > > Anyway, if you simply need a default rule for > all addresses then you need to check for just > only character in the address, right? > Checking for more is simply superfluous. Right... > Also, the pattern in the "send-hook" command > is applied to the addresses in TO/CC, anyway, > so all you need is to give part of the address: > > send-hook . 'my_hdr From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' > send-hook ! . 'my_hdr From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' > > this should work. untested, though. Just tested it and it doesn't work... Jerome -- +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 'the panorama of the city is wrong | | in fact the city seems to be gone!' | | the clash, stop the world, 1980 | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
