Re: trying to understand capture groups/repetition (regex)

2013-10-31 Thread John Hardin
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013, Marcio Humpris wrote: Can someone kindly explain a regex? Lose .{0,2}.{0,1}(KG|Quilos|Kilos|Pounds|Lb) It matches fine lose 22 pounds, lose 5 pounds. Now 3 digits such as lose 100 pounds it doesnt which is ok. I was trying to understand those capture groups .{0,2}.{0,1}

trying to understand capture groups/repetition (regex)

2013-10-31 Thread Marcio Humpris
Can someone kindly explain a regex? Lose .{0,2}.{0,1}(KG|Quilos|Kilos|Pounds|Lb) It matches fine lose 22 pounds, lose 5 pounds. Now 3 digits such as lose 100 pounds it doesnt which is ok. I was trying to understand those capture groups .{0,2}.{0,1} . is any character and the 0,2 seems to be rep

Re: Whitelisting based on IP address of last external relay

2013-10-31 Thread Henrik K
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:52:50AM -0700, John Hardin wrote: > > "Trust" here is not about "won't spam" Btw trusted_networks entities haven't been checked in DNS blacklists since 2008... so in a sense it actually is an whitelist.. ;-) https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5856#

Re: Whitelisting based on IP address of last external relay

2013-10-31 Thread Henrik K
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:45:45AM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:52:50AM -0700, John Hardin wrote: > >>"Trust" here is not about "won't spam", and ALL_TRUSTED is not a > >>whitelist. > > On 31.10.13 10:59, Henrik K wrote: > >Pfft semantics. > > > >I shortcircui

Re: Whitelisting based on IP address of last external relay

2013-10-31 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:52:50AM -0700, John Hardin wrote: "Trust" here is not about "won't spam", and ALL_TRUSTED is not a whitelist. On 31.10.13 10:59, Henrik K wrote: Pfft semantics. I shortcircuit ALL_TRUSTED with a huge trusted_networks list. :-) So yes it's a whitelist for me. I add

Re: Whitelisting based on IP address of last external relay

2013-10-31 Thread Matthias Leisi
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Henrik K wrote: I shortcircuit ALL_TRUSTED with a huge trusted_networks list. :-) So yes > it's a whitelist for me. I add networks known to be spam free and operated > by "friends" (other govenment entities, consulting firms etc). Everything > works fine, I've a

Re: Whitelisting based on IP address of last external relay

2013-10-31 Thread Henrik K
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:52:50AM -0700, John Hardin wrote: > > "Trust" here is not about "won't spam", and ALL_TRUSTED is not a > whitelist. Pfft semantics. I shortcircuit ALL_TRUSTED with a huge trusted_networks list. :-) So yes it's a whitelist for me. I add networks known to be spam free an