Re: [un]alternates not quite working
Charles Cazabon <mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Ugh. Thanks for clarifying; I thought the alternates/unalternates
> functionality was more like:
>
> IF address matches an RE from the alternates command,
> AND it does not match any RE from the unalternates command,
> THEN the address refers to "me".
>
> > If you want to exclude stuff, you'll need to explicitely exclude the gunk in
> > your alternates statement using regex syntax.
>
> Okay. "Match everything but these strings" is one of the uglier things to do
> with an RE, which is why I thought unalternates would work the way I read the
> documentation -- it would be more usable, in fact. Maybe I should file a
> request on mutt-dev.
I created a patch against mutt-cvs to implement this feature. It works for
me; I sent it to mutt-dev and haven't heard anything since. If anyone else
wants this patch, you can find the message in the archives here:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-dev&m=108558865804202&w=2
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------