Hello Chris, Wednesday, August 11, 2004, 7:11:42 AM, you wrote:
>>I suspect that the "exists" version would be more efficient, use less >>resources. ... CS> I believe this is true. exists: is much faster. But isn't that just CS> for the header name, and no the contents in that header? I'm trying CS> to remember this rule. But it looks like it also looks for the CS> contenets within that header. Which I don't think exists: checks for. Yes, exists: doesn't check for contents. However, our rule doesn't check for contents either -- it just checks to see whether the header's name exists as "name:" anywhere in the headers (and would match even if that name: were found in a Received header). Looks like I'll be converting to the exists: format. CS> But I could be wrong. No, you? Never! Bob Menschel
