[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working
From: |
Brian Zwahr |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working |
Date: |
Thu, 03 Jan 2019 09:15:28 -0600 |
I never even thought to try /oo*/. I was using /o\{1,\}/ instead. Good to know!
As for the archives, I still don't see anything newer than October 2018.
Screenshot:
https://d3vv6lp55qjaqc.cloudfront.net/items/1J3V1v052a2d2G1j0J3z/Image%202019-01-03%20at%209.11.59%20AM.png
Am I looking in the wrong place?
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, at 10:43 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Brian Zwahr wrote:
> > g/o\+/
>
> In passing I will say that the equivelent basic RE for this is:
>
> /oo*/
>
> And to make a typical example use to clarify this matches one or more
> digits.
>
> /[0-9][0-9]*/
>
> > So 1.15 is officially released? The archives only show through
> > Oct. 2018, and the last posts there are about 1.15-pre2, which I
> > assume is/was not a final release. Related, the archive says it
> > refreshes every 30 minutes, but I don't see any of today's
> > conversation (nor anything since Oct 2018). Should the auto-refresh
> > have caught and posted this conversation?
>
> I see this message thread in the archives. As the message says, there
> is a cronjob that runs every half hour and threads in new messages.
>
> > Unrelated side note: the mailing list rules state that only text
> > emails (no HTML) should be used, so I've been doing that (forcing
> > text format).
>
> That rule for avoiding HTML email is generally true of all technical
> mailing lists. HTML email has many problems and issues. Plain text
> is always best!
>
> > The replies I've been getting have been HTML emails. Is that rule no
> > longer applicable? If so, that'll save me the trouble of making sure
> > I'm sending text-only message, but also means that the rules should
> > probably be updated.
>
> Thank you very much for sending plain text emails. Why not make that
> the default? :-)
>
> However the other emails I saw were multipart/alternative with both
> plain and html parts. You may have seen the text/html part but others
> (myself!) saw the text/plain parts. Worst case is an text/html only
> message, goodness forbid.
>
> Off the top of my head...
>
> HTML often gets used because people want to set colors and fonts for
> the reader. But the recipient should have the choice of colors and
> fonts not the sender.
>
> HTML has not been as accessible for screen readers for vision impaired
> users. (I assume this has improved over the years.)
>
> HTML is really inefficient for bandwidth. It's a pig by comparison to
> plain text. On mailing lists with a lot of subscribers that can be
> serious. Often the gnu.org mailing lists keep the network bandwidth
> (all donated btw) at 100% for hours at a time. Also as mobile cell
> data becomes more prevailent metered plans where the recipient pays
> the data charge means expense for the recipient.
>
> Email standards only require a plain text part. Therefore a fully
> standards compliant email client might display the raw html.
>
> Some HTML producers generate really abhorent html.
>
> HTML email often contains "web bugs" and other tracking mechanisms.
>
> HTML has been used to propagate attacks.
>
> Bob
>
> P.S. Antonio, I twiddled the mailing list settings somewhat in
> response to this.
- [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, Brian Zwahr, 2019/01/02
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, John Cowan, 2019/01/02
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, Brian Zwahr, 2019/01/02
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, John Cowan, 2019/01/02
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, John Cowan, 2019/01/02
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, Brian Zwahr, 2019/01/02
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, Antonio Diaz Diaz, 2019/01/02
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, Brian Zwahr, 2019/01/02
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, Bob Proulx, 2019/01/02
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working,
Brian Zwahr <=
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, Antonio Diaz Diaz, 2019/01/03
- [Bug-ed] Mailman HTML email configuration (was: Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working), Bob Proulx, 2019/01/18
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, Antonio Diaz Diaz, 2019/01/03
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, Brian Zwahr, 2019/01/04
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, Antonio Diaz Diaz, 2019/01/04
- Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working, Brian Zwahr, 2019/01/04