Re: What should go into 1.5.7?
TAKAHASHI Tamotsu <ttakah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > but alternates '@.*\.domain'; unalternates '@not-mine\.domain' doesn't
> > > work.
> >
> > Doesn't it? I wrote the notalternates patch to do almost exactly this,
> > though the patterns I'm using match on bits of the local-part of the
> > address rather than the domain. But I see no reason why it wouldn't work
> > exactly as you have it above.
> Well, sorry for my poor English.
> With your patch,
> alternates '@.*\.domain'; notalternates '@not-mine\.domain'
> does work.
Yes. I use it every day.
> But I don't think we need notalternates.
I disagree.
> ==== ideal "alternates" behaviour ====
> While reading muttrc...
> Mutt stores REs of "alternates" command.
> Mutt stores REs of "unalternates" command.
> While reading a message...
> First, mutt thinks the message is from you if it matches any of the
> "alternates" REs.
> But mutt changes his dicision if the message matches any of the
> "unalternates" REs.
>
>
> Got it?
Oh, yes, I understand you. Your "ideal alternates behavioru" was how I
originally thought alternates/unalternates was supposed to work -- but I was
corrected by other list members. My notalternates patch adds exactly this
functionality without disturbing the current alternates/unalternates
behaviour.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <muttdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------