On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 09:30:29AM -0500, Wietse Venema
wrote:
> raf:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:21:07PM -0500, Viktor Dukhovni
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > On 10 Feb 2022, at 11:17 pm, raf wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But I still don't see why it was only the second
> > > > replacement index that
raf:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:21:07PM -0500, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> > > On 10 Feb 2022, at 11:17 pm, raf wrote:
> > >
> > > But I still don't see why it was only the second
> > > replacement index that was out of range, and not the
> > > first as well.
> >
> > https://sciencing.com/
Since there is not any \(BRE\) in your LHS, then ${1} could be the
whole matching BRE, but there will never be a ${2}.
Personal advice: start to test REs with sed, sed -E or perl.
--
« The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil
is for good men to do nothing. »
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:21:07PM -0500, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> > On 10 Feb 2022, at 11:17 pm, raf wrote:
> >
> > But I still don't see why it was only the second
> > replacement index that was out of range, and not the
> > first as well.
>
> https://sciencing.com/what-is-a-counterexample-
> On 10 Feb 2022, at 11:17 pm, raf wrote:
>
> But I still don't see why it was only the second
> replacement index that was out of range, and not the
> first as well.
https://sciencing.com/what-is-a-counterexample-in-algebra-12750822.html
...
One Counterexample Is Sufficient
The philosophy of t
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 03:15:13PM +1100, raf wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 07:08:14PM -0500, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> > > On 10 Feb 2022, at 7:03 pm, raf wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, but I'm not sure that that is material to this
> > > issue.
> >
> > It is.
> >
> > > Even with regexp
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 07:08:14PM -0500, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
>
> > On 10 Feb 2022, at 7:03 pm, raf wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, but I'm not sure that that is material to this
> > issue.
>
> It is.
>
> > Even with regexp, x refers to "extended
> > expression syntax".
>
> Which is a convers
> On 10 Feb 2022, at 7:03 pm, raf wrote:
>
> Thanks, but I'm not sure that that is material to this
> issue.
It is.
> Even with regexp, x refers to "extended
> expression syntax".
Which is a converse to "basic expression syntax", i.e. the obsolete
BRE syntax, in which "(" and "|" are ordina
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 05:17:13PM -0500, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> > On 9 Feb 2022, at 5:15 pm, raf wrote:
> >
> > ... and turning on/off x just means
> > that space characters in the pattern are/aren't ignored. There
> > aren't any space characters there so it should be immaterial.
>
> You'r
> On 9 Feb 2022, at 5:15 pm, raf wrote:
>
> ... and turning on/off x just means
> that space characters in the pattern are/aren't ignored. There
> aren't any space characters there so it should be immaterial.
You're confusing the "x" flag of pcre_table(5) with the rather
different "x" flag of re
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 12:13:20PM +0100, Markus Schönhaber
wrote:
> 07.02.22, 11:56 + 0100 Benoit Gschwind:
>
> > I'm using the following configuration in main.cf:
> >
> > virtual_alias_maps = regexp:/etc/postfix/virtual
> >
> > And I using the following rule in /etc/postfix/virtual file:
>
Thank you for the help,
maybe I did not read the documentation correctly :)
On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 12:13 +0100, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
> 07.02.22, 11:56 + 0100 Benoit Gschwind:
>
> > I'm using the following configuration in main.cf:
> >
> > virtual_alias_maps = regexp:/etc/postfix/virtual
>
07.02.22, 11:56 + 0100 Benoit Gschwind:
I'm using the following configuration in main.cf:
virtual_alias_maps = regexp:/etc/postfix/virtual
And I using the following rule in /etc/postfix/virtual file:
/^(.+)\.(.+)@noreply\.(.+)\.net$/ix $1.$2...@newdomain.com
but I get the following errors:
13 matches
Mail list logo
