A Sticky Suggestion

[bearson]

How's about compiling some of the common RE's in one sticky post? Probably would save a lot of needless questions. I'd expect the bulk of users are trying to filter the same sorts of things, anyway. I'd think you could cover most of the territory with a dozen or so.

[ozzii]

I try to do this filter ^[Re:]
but this doesn't work.
Can someone help me too

[ozzii]

I try ^Re: and this work

[bobkoure]

I think perhaps bearson meant "Regular Expression" by RE.

[Quade]

I think it's a good idea.

[ceyko]

mmeeeee toooo. I was used to how to filter in 4.x, but it seems different here. Has me all confused.

[itimpi]

mmeeeee toooo. I was used to how to filter in 4.x, but it seems different here. Has me all confused.

Filter syntax has not changed between 4.x and the 5 series, so not sure why it should be causing you problems.

[bobkoure]

I'd expect the bulk of users are trying to filter the same sorts of things, anyway. I'd think you could cover most of the territory with a dozen or so.

So... come up with a suggested 12 things... (I don't mean the regex expressions - just the 12 things that the bulk of users are trying to do)

[Quade]

Yeah... Problem is we can't be to detailed here on the site because Dex and I are paranoid.

[bobkoure]

Yeah - but I didn't mean as specific as that.
For instance, I'd guess the most useful thing for regex newbies is just knowing that '.', '*', and '?' don't do what you think.
And the second most useful thing is '\b'.
So let me add that one, in a semi-generic way:

If you are looking through a newsgroup and you want to find (either for inclusion or exclusion) a short word that's often "buried" in other words, use the "word boundary" marker '\b'
For instance, if you're looking for the string "no" then filtering for just that gets you
no
as well as
_no_
nowhere
nothing
nottingham
noblese
north
etc
However, filtering for "\bno\b" gets you
no
no6
_no_
- but the words containing "no" are gone.