On Feb 26, 2014, at 5:49 PM, Jeff Mincy wrote:
> Can't you do something like this using a look ahead regexp?
>
> (?=[A-Z0-9]{30,})(?:[A-Z]*[0-9]){10,}
According to regexpal.com, that matches the OP's example. The lookahead works
properly in this case, since trying to use (say) 28 numbers fail
thanks!... that appears to work just fine ... tested on http://regexpal.com
I will break that down and try to understand how it works.
JC
On 2/26/14 2:49 PM, Jeff Mincy wrote:
From: "Kevin A. McGrail"
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:06:34 -0500
On 2/26/2014 6:53 PM, Webmaster wrot
From: "Kevin A. McGrail"
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:06:34 -0500
On 2/26/2014 6:53 PM, Webmaster wrote:
> I need a regex to match an alphanumeric string with letters and numbers.
>
> example: 48HQZBF404TY2298D1414BB8050022YQ3872444
>
> The pattern is defined as:
>
Walter Hurry wrote:
I'm trying to get started with SpamAssassin on FreeBSD 9.2.
This is SpamAssassin 3.3.2, as that's the version in the FreeBSD ports.
SpamAssassin is installed with all its dependencies, but when I run
sa-update (as root),
I get the following output:
Can't load
'/usr/local/
On 2/26/2014 6:53 PM, Webmaster wrote:
I need a regex to match an alphanumeric string with letters and numbers.
example: 48HQZBF404TY2298D1414BB8050022YQ3872444
The pattern is defined as:
A sequence of alphanumeric characters, letters are upper or lower
case, at least 30 chars long, containi
Hi,
I need a regex to match an alphanumeric string with letters and numbers.
example: 48HQZBF404TY2298D1414BB8050022YQ3872444
The pattern is defined as:
A sequence of alphanumeric characters, letters are upper or lower case, at
least 30 chars long, containing at least 10 numbers.
This part
On 2/26/2014 6:32 PM, Walter Hurry wrote:
I'm trying to get started with SpamAssassin on FreeBSD 9.2. This is
SpamAssassin 3.3.2, as that's the version in the FreeBSD ports.
SpamAssassin is installed with all its dependencies, but when I run sa-update
(as root), I get the following output:
Ca
I'm trying to get started with SpamAssassin on FreeBSD 9.2. This is
SpamAssassin 3.3.2, as that's the version in the FreeBSD ports.
SpamAssassin is installed with all its dependencies, but when I run sa-update
(as root), I get the following output:
Can't load
'/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.
On 2/26/2014 4:26 PM, Mike Grau wrote:
Any chance you can try the very small patch in
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7015 and see if
it's related?
Still the same error after patching:
Feb 26 15:24:07.130 [20964] warn: util: refusing to untaint suspicious
path: "${exec_pre
> Any chance you can try the very small patch in
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7015 and see if
> it's related?
Still the same error after patching:
Feb 26 15:24:07.130 [20964] warn: util: refusing to untaint suspicious
path: "${exec_prefix}/lib"
On 2/26/2014 3:45 PM, Mike Grau wrote:
Hello,
I've installed SpamAssassin-3.4.0 on a couple of machines via the
tarball and
perl Makefile.PL
make
make test
make install
When I run a message through spamassassin -t it gives this warning from
Util.pm
Feb 26 12:19:27.028 [17527] w
Hello,
I've installed SpamAssassin-3.4.0 on a couple of machines via the
tarball and
perl Makefile.PL
make
make test
make install
When I run a message through spamassassin -t it gives this warning from
Util.pm
Feb 26 12:19:27.028 [17527] warn: util: refusing to untaint
suspicious pa
John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Matt wrote:
>
>> When doing sa-update -D I get this:
>>
>> dbg: diag: [...] module not installed: Mail::SPF ('require' failed)
>>
>> What do I need to get this on Centos?
>>
>> I see this:
>>
>> # yum list available |grep -i spf
>>
>> libspf2.x86_64
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 06:07 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> The logic below just says (if the yes no feature is available). That
> was added in 3.4. So the logic you are writing just says if I am
> running 3.4, x otherwise y.
>
> The goal of the can was to write a different report that used a
>
All that the expression
can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::feature_yesno_takes_args)
does is to check whether the _YESNO_ macro can take arguments.
It is always true in 3.4.0.
I have no idea how it could work before the way you intended.
Mark
The logic below just says (if the yes no feature is available). That was added
in 3.4. So the logic you are writing just says if I am running 3.4, x
otherwise y.
The goal of the can was to write a different report that used a special yes /no
feature.
Regards,
KAM
Noel Butler wrote:
>It w
It worked perfectly with prior versions, only since upgrade to 3.4.0 is
it using the first " its not spam" option, when it is spam (scores
clearly show that), and not using the second *is* spam segment like
previous versions did correctly, no mater I've wiped the test and will
just force it report
Best I read, all that says is, if running 3.4 (which has that feature) is spam.
The logic is the problem.
Regards,
KAM
Noel Butler wrote:
>Hi,
>Did anything change in custom report for 3.4.0 ?
>
>if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::feature_yesno_takes_args)
>report blah blah blah not spam
>else
18 matches
Mail list logo
