Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> set reply_regexp='^[Rr][Ee]:[ \t]+'
>
> changed to
>
> set reply_regexp="^[Rr][Ee]:[ \t]+"
Yep, in the first case, the single-quotes prevent the "\t" from being
translated to a "tab" character, so the regexp is evaluated as if it had
a literal 't' character to look for.
Incidentally, your use of [Rr][Ee] is redundant, since Mutt forces all
lower-cased regexp's to match in a case-insensitive manner. Your regexp
could be simplified to this:
set reply_regexp="^re:[ \t]+"
A warning here, since you are using "double quotes", that means that any
magic regexp characters that need quoting will require
double-backslashes, since Mutt is also parsing and removing them. For
instance, a "\." character would not be recognized as a literal dot,
because the first pass of Mutt would remove the backslash, leaving
merely a ".", which matches any character. Sigh.
That being said, I have found the following reply_regexp to work well
for me:
set reply_regexp="^(((re(\\[[0-9]+\\])?|fwd):|\\[[a-z0-9-]+\\])[ \t]+)+"
It recognizes subjects like the following:
Subject: Re: [mutt-dev] Fwd: Re[2]: [MUTT-LIST] Too many subject tags!
and generates replies with a subject like this:
Subject: Re: Too many subject tags!
--
David DeSimone | "The doctrine of human equality reposes on this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | that there is no man really clever who has not
Hewlett-Packard | found that he is stupid." -- Gilbert K. Chesterson
UX WTEC Engineer | PGP: 5B 47 34 9F 3B 9A B0 0D AB A6 15 F1 BB BE 8C 44
