Hi,
* Christian Lerrahn wrote (2006-03-31 08:54):
Thorsten Haude <list+mail...@thorstenhau.de> wrote:
* Christian Lerrahn wrote (2006-03-30 17:34):
Let's say I want to filter out all emails coming from ab...@def.com. I
tried the following.
/From:\s+.*abc@def\.com/
/From: *ab...@def.com/
However, the only thing I ever got to work was something like
/From: ab...@def.com/
Now the line might also be "ABC" <ab...@def.com> and this doesn't match any
more. From what the documentation said, everything looked to me pretty
much like perl regexps but obviously this is not exactly true. How would
the correct rule be written?
How about using $FROM? Maildrop already gets the "Message envelope
sender" for you, so just check on that.
Hm, I don't really want to match on the envelope sender. It might be
different (although it shouldn't).
Ok then.
Matching mail adresses is not trivial. Friedl has a regex for this in
his book which is one solid page long. Others say it can't be done at
all.
Why is that such a problem? It can be easily done in procmail.
What regex?
One of the reasons is that adresses have recursive elements, regexes
don't. Also, things like
ab...@def.com <xy...@axample.com>
tend to be interesting.
Why are the examples in the maildrop documentation not working? At
least one of the examples I gave was from the docs.
Which one?
Anyway, for the case you mention above, try /^From:.*?ab...@def.com$/.
Ok, I'll try that. But why does the .* have to be greedy?
It ain't. The ? makes it explicitly ungreedy. (I guess, I never
actually used the later versions of Maildrop.)
In Perl you would only have to use greedy matching if there are
several occurrences of what is behind that pattern. This is not the
case here.
It should work either way in this case, but ungreedy pattern tend to
be cheaper.
And shouldn't it be /^From:.*?ab...@def.com.*?$/ then? Otherwise, the
">" at the end of the address would still be a problem wouldn't it?
True, just leave out the closing $.
Thorsten