2012-04-02 12:40:27 -0400, Kris Deugau:
Can anyone point out what bit of stupidity I'm committing in trying
to use this:
rawbody OVERSIZE_COMMENTm|).{32000,}|s
to match messages that are mostly very very long HTML comment(s)?
I've found one way to handle this; use "full" instead of "
On 4/2/12 9:44 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Actually, my experience has been the opposite. I used to receive lots
of Linked-In emails and complained to them a few times regarding the
lack of an opt-out. Now that they have added one, it seems to work
normally for me. I do not, and have never had, a
On 4/2/2012 12:58 PM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 2012-04-02 12:40:27 -0400, Kris Deugau:
>> Can anyone point out what bit of stupidity I'm committing in trying
>> to use this:
>>
>> rawbody OVERSIZE_COMMENTm|).{32000,}|s
>>
>> to match messages that are mostly very very long HTML comment(s)
2012-04-02 12:40:27 -0400, Kris Deugau:
> Can anyone point out what bit of stupidity I'm committing in trying
> to use this:
>
> rawbody OVERSIZE_COMMENTm|).{32000,}|s
>
> to match messages that are mostly very very long HTML comment(s)?
>
> Testing the same regex against the whole raw m
Can anyone point out what bit of stupidity I'm committing in trying to
use this:
rawbody OVERSIZE_COMMENTm|).{32000,}|s
to match messages that are mostly very very long HTML comment(s)?
Testing the same regex against the whole raw message outside of SA seems
to fire just fine.
-kgd
On 4/1/2012 2:25 AM, Fortney, James T - CSCCS wrote:
>
> Michael (et all) -
>
> Please excuse if this perpetuates an OT discussion, but I do not
> believe Linked-In has changed anything other than their presentation
> of how to submit an op-out request. Their procedures still require
> you to g
Surely both ham and spam will have these headers so they will cancel?
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, joea wrote:
While exploring Bayes stuff, (wanting to populate appropriately for my setup),
found reference to removing headers that might confuse Bayes.
Specifically bayes_ignore_header.
The example th
