al code is most likely better.
> Kelsey Cummings wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:13:19 -0800
> > From: Kelsey Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Rob McMillin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] SUBJ_A
AIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] SUBJ_ALL_CAPS regex broken
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 08:43:09AM -0800, Rob McMillin wrote:
> > Matt Sergeant wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Wouldn't an easier fix be:
> > >
> > >/^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
> &
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 08:43:09AM -0800, Rob McMillin wrote:
> Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> >
> >Wouldn't an easier fix be:
> >
> >/^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
> >
> Interesting. [^a-z] includes [A-Z]. It also matches a zero-length
> string. How about
>
> /^(?:[A-Z]|[^A-Za-z])+$/
Is one of these fixes goi
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 02:26:42PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
>>I think the original intention of the count was to make sure we had at
>>least three upper case chars, in which case you could get away with:
>>
>>/^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*?[A-Z]{3,}([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
>>
>>That need
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 02:26:42PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > I think the original intention of the count was to make sure we had at
> > least three upper case chars, in which case you could get away with:
> >
> > /^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*?[A-Z]{3,}([A-Z
Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
>Wouldn't an easier fix be:
>
>/^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
>
Interesting. [^a-z] includes [A-Z]. It also matches a zero-length
string. How about
/^(?:[A-Z]|[^A-Za-z])+$/
???
--
http://www.pricegrabber.com | Dog is my co-pilot.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 02:26:42PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> I think the original intention of the count was to make sure we had at
> least three upper case chars, in which case you could get away with:
>
> /^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*?[A-Z]{3,}([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
>
> That needs testing though to make su
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> I think the original intention of the count was to make sure we had at
> least three upper case chars, in which case you could get away with:
>
> /^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*?[A-Z]{3,}([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
>
> That needs testing though to make sure it doesn't backtrack
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't an easier fix be:
> >
> > /^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
>
> That's just way too simple, Matt. Let's try for something more
> complicated. :-)
>
> But it doesn't have the "must have at least XX charac
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
>
> Wouldn't an easier fix be:
>
> /^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
That's just way too simple, Matt. Let's try for something more
complicated. :-)
But it doesn't have the "must have at least XX characters" element that
the other test has. Does that matter? I'm no
On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> Charlie Watts wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>s/b
> >>
> >> return $subject cmp uc($subject);
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >'s OK, I'll share my prize with you. Everybody goes home a winner here at
> >"The Regex is Right!"
> >
>
On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> The following program did not take long to run. What am I doing wrong?
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> $string="AAA foofoo";
> if ($string=~/^[^a-z]*([A-Z][^a-z]*){3,}[^a-z]*$/) {
> print "passed\n";
> } else {
> print "failed\n
Bart Schaefer wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
>
>>+ return !($subject cmp uc($subject));
>>
>
>Um, why not:
>
> return ($subject eq uc($subject))
>
>??
>
Sure, if you like:
diff -c
/usr/home/rlm/src/RPMS/BUILD/Mail-SpamAssassin/lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/EvalTests.pm.\~1\~
/us
On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> + return !($subject cmp uc($subject));
Um, why not:
return ($subject eq uc($subject))
??
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>I don't really know perl, but I tried to duplicate the slow match on the
>rule in a little test program to see if I could experiment with ideas
>for a working regexp.
>
>The following program did not take long to run. What am I doing wrong?
>
Probably using a different re
I don't really know perl, but I tried to duplicate the slow match on the
rule in a little test program to see if I could experiment with ideas
for a working regexp.
The following program did not take long to run. What am I doing wrong?
#!/usr/bin/perl
$string="AAA foofoo";
if ($s
Charlie Watts wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
>
>>
>>s/b
>>
>> return $subject cmp uc($subject);
>>
>>
>>
>
>'s OK, I'll share my prize with you. Everybody goes home a winner here at
>"The Regex is Right!"
>
Okay, so here's my mods:
cd ~/src/RPMS/BUILD/Mail-SpamAssassin/lib/Mail/
Charlie Watts wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
>
>>
>>s/b
>>
>> return $subject cmp uc($subject);
>>
>>
>>
>
>'s OK, I'll share my prize with you. Everybody goes home a winner here at
>"The Regex is Right!"
>
Cool, I was just hoping for a board game version of the show as a
consol
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
>
> s/b
>
> return $subject cmp uc($subject);
>
>
's OK, I'll share my prize with you. Everybody goes home a winner here at
"The Regex is Right!"
--
Charlie Watts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frontier Internet, Inc.
http://www.frontier.net/
___
Charlie Watts wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
>
>>Charlie Watts wrote:
>>
>>>The current SUBJ_ALL_CAPS is broken.
>>>
>>>(The one from CVS - this:
>>>header SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject =~ /^[^a-z]*([A-Z][^a-z]*){3,}[^a-z]*$/
>>>)
>>>
>>Congratulations, Charlie! You're the next winner on
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> Charlie Watts wrote:
>
> >The current SUBJ_ALL_CAPS is broken.
> >
> >(The one from CVS - this:
> >header SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject =~ /^[^a-z]*([A-Z][^a-z]*){3,}[^a-z]*$/
> >)
> >
> Congratulations, Charlie! You're the next winner on "The Regex Is Right!"
T
Charlie Watts wrote:
>The current SUBJ_ALL_CAPS is broken.
>
>(The one from CVS - this:
>header SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject =~ /^[^a-z]*([A-Z][^a-z]*){3,}[^a-z]*$/
>)
>
Congratulations, Charlie! You're the next winner on "The Regex Is Right!"
Heh.
The problem is that this RE has exponential backoff t
The current SUBJ_ALL_CAPS is broken.
(The one from CVS - this:
header SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject =~ /^[^a-z]*([A-Z][^a-z]*){3,}[^a-z]*$/
)
Scanning this message takes 10 seconds:
From: Charlie Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A foofoo
token body
This takes 20 seconds:
From: C
23 matches
Mail list logo
