* rahlqu...@gmail.com :
> As said before blocking at the MTA would be less resource intensive but I
> want the whole message to feed bayes.
But you already KNOW you don't want that stuff :) No need to poison
your bayesdb with that...
> As for Ralf and his lightly gruff response, its to be expect
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, rahlqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! Your earlier Regex is in place and doing quite well.
Pleased to be of service.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:32 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>>>
* rahlqu...@gmail.com :
> Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for
> email address
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Benny Pedersen :
>> On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
>>> Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
>>> old gas.
>> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
>> his answers just unsubsc
some centos people are having a pub party and the "kings and queens" in
london
it might be over already based upon time difference from usa
maybe all of you could go there and drink beer and duke it out or something
constructive
;->
- rh
* John Hardin :
> In that case, depending on the MTA logging, perhaps he could still
> disable catchall and then troll the logs to see which invalid
> addresses were attempted.
Or block tke mail to any recipient starting with "|"
In postfix that could be done with
check_recipient_access regexp:/
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:32 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* rahlqu...@gmail.com :
Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match
for email addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of
my spam is this ).
That's no
* Matus UHLAR - fantomas :
> Ralf's question was in no way offensive. He is just trying to solve the
> problem by way that is most efficient for most of e-mail users and admins.
What the OP intends to do ("Who's selling away my addresses?") can be
done in the MTA entirely. A colleague at tu-bs.de
* Benny Pedersen :
> On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
> >Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
> >old gas.
>
> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
> his answers just unsubscribe
Good point, but richar
* rich...@buzzhost.co.uk :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:32 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > * rahlqu...@gmail.com :
> > > Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for
> > > email
> > > addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my spam is this
> > > ).
> >
From:
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/November/10 09:14
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:45 -0500, Alex wrote:
>> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
>> his answers just unsubscribe
>>
> Trotting out useless, pointless, tardy, curt, terse replies benefit
> nobody at all and makes
From:
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/November/10 08:27
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:50 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
> Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
> old gas.
imho Ralf have never being banned in mailli
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Rather than let this drift into a hijacked free-for-all perhaps one of
the guru's of REGEX here would actually like to answer the OP's
question.
If you hadn't gotten distracted by your multiple nemeses you would have
noticed I've done so. :)
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 11:45 -0500, Alex wrote:
> >> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
> >> his answers just unsubscribe
> >>
> > Trotting out useless, pointless, tardy, curt, terse replies benefit
> > nobody at all and makes the poster look arrogant especially whe
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:32 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > * rahlqu...@gmail.com :
> > > Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for
> > > email
> > > addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my spam is this
> > > ).
> >
> > That's not needed. Wh
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, rahlqu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:09 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>>
>> * rahlqu...@gmail.com :
>>>
Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match
> for email addres
>> I sometimes welcome the terse replies; it illicit's clarification from the
>> OP.
>
> ITYM "elicits".
Heh, yes, thanks. I don't think they're involved in some illicit sex scandal :-)
In either case, the apostrophe was wrong, too. Working on getting a
new toolchain compiled and working straight
On 10-Nov-2009, at 09:27, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:50 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
>>> Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
>>> old gas.
>>
>> imho Ralf have never b
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Alex wrote:
imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
his answers just unsubscribe
Trotting out useless, pointless, tardy, curt, terse replies benefit
nobody at all and makes the poster look arrogant especially when the
answer is mere opinion.
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, rahlqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:09 AM, John Hardin wrote:
* rahlqu...@gmail.com :
Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match
for email addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my
spam is this ).
Richard,
>> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
>> his answers just unsubscribe
>>
> Trotting out useless, pointless, tardy, curt, terse replies benefit
> nobody at all and makes the poster look arrogant especially when the
> answer is mere opinion.
I sometimes welcome the
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:50 +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
> > Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
> > old gas.
>
> imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
> his answer
On tir 10 nov 2009 15:26:43 CET, "rich...@buzzhost.co.uk" wrote
Please keep this in your mind in future before trotting out that tired
old gas.
imho Ralf have never being banned in maillist here, if you dont like
his answers just unsubscribe
--
xpoint
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:32 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * rahlqu...@gmail.com :
> > Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for email
> > addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my spam is this ).
>
> That's not needed. Why are you accepting mail t
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* rahlqu...@gmail.com :
Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match
for email addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of
my spam is this ).
That's not needed. Why are you accepting mail to NON-EXISTING
recipie
* rahlqu...@gmail.com :
> Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for email
> addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my spam is this ).
That's not needed. Why are you accepting mail to NON-EXISTING
recipients at all?
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbe
Ok regex is not my strong suit by any means. Trying to get a match for email
addresses that start with a pipe character ( about 15% of my spam is this ).
What I have so far is this;
[^a-z0-9]\b[a-z0-9._%+...@[a-z0-9.-]+\.[a-z]{2,4}\b
To me that looks right but its not hitting. Any other suggestio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> pointed out by a kind list member, there are various 'flavours' of
> regex. Can anyone tell me which particular flavour I'm best
> concentrating on for SA rules?
man perlre
- -- Matthias
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Versi
Hi All,
I've recently invested in some books and software to help me figure
out what I *thought* I already knew pretty well (regex). As was
pointed out by a kind list member, there are various 'flavours' of
regex. Can anyone tell me which particular flavour I'm best
concentrating on for SA rules?
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Can anyone tell me if I need to escape the characters within the
> square braces in the following?
>
> body NF_REM_CHAR1 /remove [*%!+`"£$%^&()_-=#~]/i
A dash indicates a range (e.g. a-z) - if you need that, it's safest to
put it as the first charact
Hi All,
Can anyone tell me if I need to escape the characters within the
square braces in the following?
body NF_REM_CHAR1 /remove [*%!+`"£$%^&()_-=#~]/i
score NF_REM_CHAR1 4.0
describe NF_REM_CHAR1 remove chars for URL spams
TIA
Nigel
Good point, you're completely right! Thanks for pointing that out... :)
Cheers,
Jeremy
"John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Apr 25, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Jeremy Fairbrass wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> /style="[^>]+color:blue/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Just a smal
On Apr 25, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Jeremy Fairbrass wrote:
/style="[^>]+color:blue/
Just a small note, which may be mostly a digression but:
I don't think the above regex will match that string at all.
The regex, because it has a + instead of a *, requires at least one
character b
Thanks guys for the clarifications! My understanding of how regex worked was
the same as Bowie's, ie:
-
> My understanding is that with [^"]+ the engine will scan from left to
> right until it finds a quote. Then, in the context of the previous
> regex, it will start backtracking to find a mat
David Landgren wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > An alternative solution would be this:
> > >
> > > /style="[^>]+color:blue/
> >
> > This looks better. It is probably less resource-intensive than
> > your previous attempt and is definitely easier to read. But why
> > are you look
Bowie Bailey wrote:
[...]
An alternative solution would be this:
/style="[^>]+color:blue/
This looks better. It is probably less resource-intensive than your
previous attempt and is definitely easier to read. But why are you
looking for > when you anchor the beginning with a quote?
How ab
Jeremy Fairbrass wrote:
>
> Let's say I want to use regex to search for the phrase "color:blue"
> within a tag as in the example below (just a made-up example
> for the sake of this question):
>
>
>
> In this case, the "color:blue" part is preceeded by some other text
> ("border:0px") after th
Jeremy Fairbrass wrote:
[...]
So one possible solution would be the following:
/style="(.(?!color))+.color:blue/
Eeep!
In other words, after the first " (quote mark) it looks for any character
NOT followed by the word "color", and repeats that with the + character,
until it gets to the ac
Hi all,
I wonder if one of you regex gurus might be able to give me some advice
regarding the most efficiant way of writing a particular rule
Let's say I want to use regex to search for the phrase "color:blue" within a
tag as in the example below (just a made-up example for the sake of
thi
39 matches
Mail list logo
