From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kai Grossjohann Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RMAIL against Texinfo Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:33:54 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <878yjmyly5.fsf@emptyhost.emptydomain.de> References: <2914-Sun01Feb2004191602+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <87isiq5uzg.fsf@emptyhost.emptydomain.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1075707311 10625 80.91.224.253 (2 Feb 2004 07:35:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 07:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 02 08:35:05 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AnYbp-0001LX-00 for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:35:05 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AnYbo-00082J-00 for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:35:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AnYbf-0008N5-35 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 02:34:55 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AnYay-0008L4-Vs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 02:34:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AnYaR-0007rw-0G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 02:34:10 -0500 Original-Received: from [80.91.224.249] (helo=main.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AnYaQ-0007rk-GD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 02:33:38 -0500 Original-Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AnYaP-0000OJ-00 for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:33:37 +0100 Original-Received: from 213-203-244-156.kunde.vdserver.de ([213.203.244.156]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon Feb 2 07:33:37 2004 Original-Received: from kai by 213-203-244-156.kunde.vdserver.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon Feb 2 07:33:37 2004 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 78 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213-203-244-156.kunde.vdserver.de User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:tbSWSp1aGqy4Zb7zX570Nkxv22o= X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:19641 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:19641 Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Kai Grossjohann >> Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:51:31 +0100 >> >> This will still remove frumple-info and tex-info from the list of >> addresses. > > So you are saying that using \` instead of \< would be better? (I > used \< because I thought about addresses like > , with the brackets intact.) I see. Now I've looked in rmail-dont-reply-to and I see that I had wildly guessed at what it might do, but I guessed completely wrong. Lesson: always look at the source code first. It seems that rmail-dont-reply-to-names is already anchored to the beginning of an email address by the existing code? Or am I misreading? >> Also, there is experience with nnmail-fancy-split in Gnus, which >> automatically surrounds regexes with \\< and \\>. Users are supposed >> to say ".*foo.*" if they want to undo the effect of \\<...\\>. But >> after some years it turned out that this didn't always work, and now >> there is additional code in the function supporting nnmail-split-fancy >> which checks for the regex starting with ".*"... I forgot what >> exactly was the problem, though. > > Well, do you see any reason that this would be relevant to the case > in point? mail-utils.el doesn't surround regular expressions with \< > and \>, it only does that with usernames, which aren't regexps. Didn't you suggest to automagically add \\<...\\> to the regexp constructed from rmail-dont-reply-to-names? And rmail-dont-reply-to-names is documented to be a regexp. >> I'm afraid that with a similar change for rmail-dont-reply-to-names, >> you might fall into similar traps. > > Like what? After some gmaning, ISTR that there was a problem when the regex started or ended with a non-word character. For instance, if you wanted to exclude the user name foo_, then auto-appending \\> to the regex would do no good, as "foo_\\>" can never match. It is, of course unusual for a user name to start or end with a non-word character. But in the case of fancy splitting in Gnus, people would often use regexes like "foo@". Hm. I think that there was also a boundary case where not even adding ".*" would work. I can't give a realistic example, but if the user name foo_ was naked and the last one, then the string to be matched against would end like "...foo_". And the regex "foo_.*\\>" does not match this string. That's why fancy splitting in Gnus has code to detect whether the regex entered by the user starts/ends with .*, and if so, the corresponding \\ is omitted. Please take the above with a grain of salt; I'm giving you what I can remember but I don't remember exactly. As I said in my previous post, it would be good to ask the Gnus folks for any gotchas. (If I knew all the gotchas already, I didn't have to suggest asking the Gnus folks...) >> And it doesn't even cover all cases. > > Sure, but it does make the current situation better, doesn't it? It still means that there is more magic going on, and more magic is not necessarily good. Kai