On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:33:29AM EST, Payal Rathod wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 04:24:05PM -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > @(blah.com|goo\.org) > > @((blah|goo)\.com) > > @((.+\.)?(blah|goo)\.com) > > Great. Seem so easy to look at. Those patterns really aren't ideal if you're gonna use 'em directly. These are much better: @(blah.com|goo\.org)$ @((blah|goo)\.com)$ @((.+\.)?(blah|goo)\.com)$ > > > BTW, my original problem is still not solved. Any ideas on that? > > > > I don't think anybody actually understood your original problem ;^) > > Well, the original problem was that with my a list with Reply-To set, > the "alternates" is of no use. It works with all lists except those > lists with Reply-To set. Can someone explain this? Let's see if I get this right: When a list email with a "Reply-To:" header pointing to the list itself arrives, $alternates has no effect. (What effect were you expecting it to have?) Can someone please explain the problem? I'm starting to feel awfully dense here :-( Thanks guys, - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpmuGcVisDVW.pgp
Description: PGP signature