From: Wizard <wi...@ne...> - 2003-02-12 13:50:02
|
> Something like this maybe: > > info@dk -> /^info@dk$/ > > *@dk -> /@dk$/ > > *@*.kr -> /\bkr$/ > > fred@*.spammers.com -> /^fred@.*\bspammers.com$/ > > In this case, you treat the period in the filter syntax as meaning word > boundary and munge into the regex accordingly. The first two work, which is what I meant by "post-@ full-string matches", but with the last two we have unintended consequences: #3 will match fred@bi-kr (yes, I know it's not necessarily valid) #4 will match fr...@no... I do realize that there are likely solutions to these issues, as there are solutions to most of the issues discussed. But that being the case, why shouldn't there also be solutions to the problems that I am encountering in my implementation? In fact (although I'm not positive), I believe that the system that I have now will interpret all of these examples correctly. I plan on completing a test script this morning. Let me know if I should post it to the list for testing. Grant M. |