Mike Maughan sent the message below at 06:28 PM 3/22/2007:
>On 23/03/07, Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ^subject:\s*(\(no[_ ]subject\))?\s*$
> >
> >
>Thanks for the fix & the explanation. Do you know, that's the first time
>I've actually understood a pattern search regex? Wund
On 23/03/07, Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> ^subject:\s*(\(no[_ ]subject\))?\s*$
>
>
Thanks for the fix & the explanation. Do you know, that's the first time
I've actually understood a pattern search regex? Wunderbar! :)
--
Regards, Mike
Mike Maughan wrote:
>
>I've implemented the recommendations; now all I have to do is decipher your
>regex :))
>> $subject:\s*(\(no[_ ]subject\))?\s*$
Ooops! It's wrong. It should be
^subject:\s*(\(no[_ ]subject\))?\s*$
The original wouldn't match anything.
It says:
^ - the start of the line
Thanks again, Mark.
I've implemented the recommendations; now all I have to do is decipher your
regex :))
- Mike
On 23/03/07, Mark Sapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mike Maughan wrote:
> >
> >The cases I'd like to trap are:
> >
> > 1. empty subject
> > 2. (no subject)
> > 3. (no_subjec
Mike Maughan wrote:
>
>The cases I'd like to trap are:
>
> 1. empty subject
> 2. (no subject)
> 3. (no_subject)
>
>Is there an easy way? Am I (as has been known on occasion :) missing
>something obvious?
You can trap all 3 of the above cases with a header_filter_rules rule
with the regexp
I posted earlier about problems with "(no subject)" postings to my lists,
not complaining about such to mailman-users, but I wasn't very clear in
what I said so my apologies to anyone who may have been offended.
To restate my problem and renew the request for help (if anyone is still
talking to m
