jhenders@??? said:
} Anyway, using the above search method, you can now have a file with
} entries that look like the following. I put the 8 character item first
} because it's very common nowadays, and that probably means that the >*
} in the uu.net entry is redundant (Philip?). Also, a @@partial1-lsearch
} might be more efficient as well.
I must admit I find it had to understand why people use lsearch
extensively - for a partial search you can be doing a lot of file scans.
Personally I have *everything* as dbm files.
I would expect, and my experience tends to bear it out, that the file
scanning will stop on the first match, so if your uu.net matches, then
there will not be an automatic fallover to the * entry (but you can
redirect to it using >+ ).
I do something like the following:-
# Dummy entries for rules
_basic_rejects_: list:of:basic:names:that:we:reject
_basic_numeric_: ^\d{8}:>_basic_rejects_
#
# Domain entries
*: >_basic_rejects_
*.aol.com: >_basic_numeric_
*.compuserve.com: >_basic_numeric_
*.otherplace.com: special:entries:>_basic_numeric_
I keep wondering whether it would be useful to be able to have multiple >
entries on a line, although the code would need to keep track of what
things have been looked up to prevent looping (which can happen in the
current version).
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel.Metheringham@??? - Systems Software Engineer ]
[ Tel : +44 113 251 6012 Fax : +44 113 224 0003 ]
[ Friends don't let friends use sendmail! ]
