On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 15:15 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
> [...] I have been working on this for over a week and
> still can't seem to get it. It is critical that I get this working.
No, it is not.
What's critical is, that you find out how and where you are "losing
mail". Hint: SA does *not* drop ma
mouss a écrit :
> Matt Garretson a écrit :
>> This thread is getting ridiculous. Just use
>>
>> Subject =~ /po.*\d+/i
>>
>> To avoid losing millions of dollars, surely they can put
>> up with a couple of porn and impotence spams. :-)
>
> or
>
> Subject =~ /\bPO\W.*\d+/i
>
>
Thanks
Matt Garretson a écrit :
> This thread is getting ridiculous. Just use
>
> Subject =~ /po.*\d+/i
>
> To avoid losing millions of dollars, surely they can put
> up with a couple of porn and impotence spams. :-)
or
Subject =~ /\bPO\W.*\d+/i
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
The following looks like it will work. Does any one see any reasons why this
would not work?
/\bPO ?s?:?#?\d{0,10}?[a-z]{0,5}?/i
The order of your optional bits will be respected, and there's not a "v"
or apostrophe in there, which was in one of your actu
This thread is getting ridiculous. Just use
Subject =~ /po.*\d+/i
To avoid losing millions of dollars, surely they can put
up with a couple of porn and impotence spams. :-)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
Then I need numbers and letters - [0-9a-z]\{1,10\} - I may need need this.
Don't escape the curlies.
Does this need to support alphanumeric POs? The rules provided so far
likely won't do that.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.
Ray Jette wrote:
mouss wrote:
Ray Jette a écrit :
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Back on-list.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:40 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
Yes, and it does match case insensitively.
I guess the issue is with your testing environment. How are you
testing
the rule, err, re
Ray Jette wrote:
> Ray Jette wrote:
> >
> > A lot of these rules look good but not appear to work for what I am
> > trying to do. Sorry about all the trouble. I'm not realy that good
> > at regular expressions but I am learning. Here are some real
> > examples from my mail server:
> >
> >* P
Ray Jette wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >
> > \b matches a zero-length word boundary. This means that one side
> > is a "word character" and the other side is not. Word characters
> > are defined as alphanumeric plus "_". So the only option in your
> > list that would cause a problem is "PO123
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
A lot of these rules look good but not appear to work for what I am
trying to do. Sorry about all the trouble. I'm not realy that good at
regular expressions but I am learning. Here are some real examples
from my mail server:
* PO17
On 12/04/2008 01:49 Ray Jette wrote:
> A lot of these rules look good but not appear to work for what I am
> trying to do. Sorry about all the trouble. I'm not realy that good at
> regular expressions but I am learning. Here are some real examples from
> my mail server:
>
>* PO1786
>* PO
Ray Jette wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
following: PO PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
sc
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
A lot of these rules look good but not appear to work for what I am
trying to do. Sorry about all the trouble. I'm not realy that good at
regular expressions but I am learning. Here are some real examples from
my mail server:
* PO1786
* PO 42111
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
following: PO PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
score PO_AND_ORDE
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Raymond Jette wrote:
I am using:
/bPO(?:\b ?#?|\d)/i
You're missing a backslash in front of that first "b". Others have already
commented on the hashmark.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 20:09 -0500, Raymond Jette wrote:
> I am using:
> /bPO(?:\b ?#?|\d)/i
I asked you more than once, if you --lint check your configuration. This
answers it. You do NOT.
> My rules is not listed.
Yes.
> > > You don't need to escape the hash in a Perl RE unless you are using
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 12/2/2008 2:43 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Rule to catch PO#
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 12:35 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > > Btw, you need to escape the hash
wie Bailey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 12/2/2008 3:07 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Rule to catch PO#
Ray Jette wrote:
>
> I created the test message and ran it through both ways. One with PO
> and the other with po. The rule fired on both.
> When receiving mai
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 14:06 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
> > [ *snipp* ]
> >
> > If all else fails, just save the message out of your MUA.
> >
> > You can then test with the saved file and investigate the output:
> > spamassassin <
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 21:11 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > I created the test message and ran it through both ways. One with PO and
> > the other with po. The rule fired on both.
>
> Err, this is bad, isn't it?
Doh! Ignore that line. A brain-fart made me read "with no".
--
char *t="[
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 14:55 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
> I created the test message and ran it through both ways. One with PO and
> the other with po. The rule fired on both.
Err, this is bad, isn't it?
What rule *exactly* are you talking about? Copy-n-paste it from the cf
file. What file name does
Ray Jette wrote:
>
> I created the test message and ran it through both ways. One with PO
> and the other with po. The rule fired on both.
> When receiving mail from the outside the rule only fires on PO and not
> po. Is there any reason for this to happen?
Sure. There are two reasons this could
mouss wrote:
Ray Jette a écrit :
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Back on-list.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:40 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
Yes, and it does match case insensitively.
I guess the issue is with your testing environment. How are you testing
the rule, err, regexp for a rule?
mouss wrote:
Ray Jette a écrit :
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Back on-list.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:40 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
Yes, and it does match case insensitively.
I guess the issue is with your testing environment. How are you testing
the rule, err, regexp for a rule?
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 14:06 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
[ *snipp* ]
I reset the daemon. How do I cann spamassassin with the message. I'm not
sure how to create a message from the server with out sending one.
If all else fails, just save the message out of your M
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 12:35 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > > Btw, you need to escape the hash '#', not because this is an RE,
> > > but because it is Perl. :)
> >
> > You don't need to escape the hash in a Perl RE unless you are using
Ray Jette a écrit :
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> Back on-list.
>>
>> On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:40 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
>>
Yes, and it does match case insensitively.
I guess the issue is with your testing environment. How are you testing
the rule, err, regexp for a rule?
>
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 14:06 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
[ *snipp* ]
> I reset the daemon. How do I cann spamassassin with the message. I'm not
> sure how to create a message from the server with out sending one.
If all else fails, just save the message out of your MUA.
You can then test with the sa
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Back on-list.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:40 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
Yes, and it does match case insensitively.
I guess the issue is with your testing environment. How are you testing
the rule, err, regexp for a rule?
I sent to messages from yahoo. One with a
Ray Jette wrote:
Thanks for all the help. I am still having issues. Let me try to
explain a little more. Subjects can contain the following
PO
PO
PO#
PO#
PO #
PO #
I can match PO with /\bPO/i but this does not fill my requirements.
I need to be able to match all above and i'm not sure wher
Back on-list.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:40 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
> > Yes, and it does match case insensitively.
> >
> > I guess the issue is with your testing environment. How are you testing
> > the rule, err, regexp for a rule?
>
> I sent to messages from yahoo. One with a subject of PO and th
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 13:20 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
> I am having a lot of issues with this. Sorry but my regex skills are not
> very good. I'm trying to learn through. This is a skill I need to learn.
> I decided to start at the beginning and build the expression up from
> there. I have the fol
Matt Garretson wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
PO
PO
PO#
PO#
PO #
PO #
Try:
Subject =~ /PO ?\#? ?\d+/i
If you don't need case insensitivity, remove the trailing 'i'.
Thanks for the reply. I tryed to use Subject ~
That matched PO but it did not match po. I have /i at the end.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 12:48 -0500, Ray Jette wrote:
> Thanks again.
> I am using the following rule:
> /\bPO(?:\b|\d)/i
> This rule working when matching 'PO' but it will not match 'po'. It ends
> in a /i so I can't see why this would not work.
The rule is just fine, and it does match lower case,
Ray Jette wrote:
> PO
> PO
> PO#
> PO#
> PO #
> PO #
Try:
Subject =~ /PO ?\#? ?\d+/i
If you don't need case insensitivity, remove the trailing 'i'.
Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the following:
PO
PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
score PO_AND_ORDERS-0.50
describe PO_AND_ORDERSA negative scoring rule that searc
Thanks for all the help. I am still having issues. Let me try to explain
a little more. Subjects can contain the following
PO
PO
PO#
PO#
PO #
PO #
I can match PO with /\bPO/i but this does not fill my requirements.
I need to be able to match all above and i'm not sure where to start.
Thank y
> > Rather than trying to catch FPs like this, I first would investigate why
> > any need for this in the place. *Why* are your hams looking that spammy?
> > Which rules do they trigger?
>
> I have users reporting missing e-mails but when i ask for specifics for
> the messages they never have the
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 12:35 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Btw, you need to escape the hash '#', not because this is an RE, but
> > because it is Perl. :)
>
> You don't need to escape the hash in a Perl RE unless you are using hash
> characters for the RE boundary mar
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Please note that you do *not* need to specify all variations explicitly,
if you actually want to match *anything* that starts with "PO"...
Thanks for the information I will make sure to read it. I am going to
try /\bPO\b now and see if it helps.
Since thi
> > Please note that you do *not* need to specify all variations explicitly,
> > if you actually want to match *anything* that starts with "PO"...
>
> Thanks for the information I will make sure to read it. I am going to
> try /\bPO\b now and see if it helps.
Since this isn't your first attempt
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
following: PO PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
score PO_AND_ORDE
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > >
> > > > header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
>
> Btw, you need to escape the hash '#', not because this is an RE, but
> because it is Perl. :)
You don't need to escape the hash in a Perl RE unless you are using hash
characters for the RE boundary
Ray Jette wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > Ray Jette wrote:
> >
> > > Good morning,
> > > I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
> > > following: PO PO#
> > > PO #
> > >
> > > Following is the rule I am using:
> > >
> > > header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
following: PO
PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
In REs, the asterisk '*' is a quantifier, not a wildcard as it is with
the shell, and
> >> I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
> >> following: PO
> >> PO#
> >> PO #
> >>
> >> Following is the rule I am using:
> >>
> >> header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
In REs, the asterisk '*' is a quantifier, not a wildcard as it is with
the shell, and m
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
following: PO
PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
score PO_AND_ORDERS-0.50
describe PO_AND_ORDERSA negative
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Ray Jette wrote:
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the following:
PO
PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
score PO_AND_ORDERS-0.50
describe PO_AND_ORDERSA negative sc
Ray Jette wrote:
> Good morning,
> I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the
> following: PO
> PO#
> PO #
>
> Following is the rule I am using:
>
> header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
> score PO_AND_ORDERS-0.50
> describe PO_AND_ORDERSA negative sco
Good morning,
I am trying to write a negative scoring rule that files on the following:
PO
PO#
PO #
Following is the rule I am using:
header PO_AND_ORDERSSubject =~ /\bPO*?#?/i
score PO_AND_ORDERS-0.50
describe PO_AND_ORDERSA negative scoring rule that searches the
subject f
50 matches
Mail list logo
