On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 12:16:13, David Elliott wrote:
> Humm try this subject one (or am I doing something wrong).
No, I haven't seen reply numbering like this before, so I haven't accounted
for it. This should fix it:
%SETPATTREGEXP=/^(?:(?:[^:]{0,4}(?:[\[\(]\d+[\]\)])?:)?\s*(\[[^\]]*\]\s)|(?:(?:[^:]{0,4}(?:[\[\(]\d+[\]\)])?:)?\s*(?:\[[^\]]*\]\s*)?)?)%-
\s*(?:(?:[^:]{0,4}(?:[\[\(]\d+[\]\)])?:)?\s*(?:\[[^\]]*\]\s*)?)*%-
(.*?)%-
([\(\[].+[\)\]])?$/%-
%RegExpBlindMatch="%OSubj"%-
%Subject='Re: %SUBPATT="1"%SUBPATT="2"'
--
< Jernej Simoncic ><><><><>< http://deepthought.ena.si/ >
Information which is true meets a great many different tests very well.
-- Berkeley's Fourth Law
________________________________________________________
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
