On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Michael
Monnerie wrote:
> On Mittwoch 17 Juni 2009 Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>> Yes, it matters (one path is tried then the other has to be tried, as
>> opposed to having a single path)
>
> So which is better performance wise? I guess [sz]? but I'm not sure now.
[sz]
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 07:26:58AM +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Mittwoch 17 Juni 2009 Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> > Yes, it matters (one path is tried then the other has to be tried, as
> > opposed to having a single path)
>
> So which is better performance wise? I guess [sz]? but I'm not sure
On Mittwoch 17 Juni 2009 Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Yes, it matters (one path is tried then the other has to be tried, as
> opposed to having a single path)
So which is better performance wise? I guess [sz]? but I'm not sure now.
mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc- http://it-mana
I'm pretty sure it still matters.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 19:16, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Yes, it matters (one path is tried then the other has to be tried, as
> opposed to having a single path), though the overall amount is
> probably negligible. Perl's RE compiler could well optimize this away
Yes, it matters (one path is tried then the other has to be tried, as
opposed to having a single path), though the overall amount is
probably negligible. Perl's RE compiler could well optimize this away
anyway.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Kelson wrote:
> Wouldn't it be more efficient to wri
Wouldn't it be more efficient to write all the single-letter matches
like "(?:s|z)?" as "[sz]?" or does it end up not making a difference
when the regex is actually processed?
--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Andy Dorman wrote:
##{ FS_TEEN_BAD
header FS_TEEN_BAD Subject =~
/\b(?:teen(?:s|z)?|girl(?:s|z)?|boy(?:s|z)?|jailbait|lolita(?:s|z)?)
.*\b(?:pussy|sex(?:x{0,3}y|ual)?|slut(?:s|ty)?|
ass(?:es|fuck(?:ing|ed)?|whip(?:ping|ped)?|
spank(?:ing|ed)?)?|fuck(?:ing|ed)?|rap(
OK, I think/hope this is the final pass. Thanks for all the good thoughts &
ideas (and spelling corrections) from everyone.
##{ FS_TEEN_BAD
header FS_TEEN_BAD Subject =~
/\b(?:teen(?:s|z)?|girl(?:s|z)?|boy(?:s|z)?|jailbait|lolita(?:s|z)?).*\b(?:pussy|sex(?:x{0,3}y|ual)?|slut(?:s|ty)?|ass(?:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, McDonald, Dan wrote:
/\b(?:teens?|girls?|boys?...
doesn't the first ?: negate that whole part of the test?
No, that means "don't capture the match", not "this is optional".
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, McDonald, Dan wrote:
Two 'p's in 'whipping'. One 'x' in 'sexy' :)
I've seen sexxxy as well
(BIG LOUD LAUGH)
(clutches head in pain) No! Not obfuscation checking code! No! Please make
it stop! Make it stop! The pain! I can't take it!
You are, of course, correct.
On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 13:52 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, RW wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:03:43 -0500
> > Andy Dorman wrote:
> >> ##{ FS_TEEN_BAD
> >> header FS_TEEN_BADSubject =~
> >> /\b(?:teens?|girls?|boys?...
> >> describe FS_TEEN_BADSubject says somethin
RW wrote:
##{ FS_TEEN_BAD
header FS_TEEN_BADSubject =~
/\b(?:teens?|girls?|boys?).{1,15}\b(?:pussy|sex(?:xy|ual)?|slut(?:s|ty)?|ass(?:es|fuck(?:ing|ed)?|whip(?:ing|ped)?|spank(?:ing|ed)?)?|fuck(?:ing|ed)?|rap(?:e|ed|ing)+)\b/i
describe FS_TEEN_BADSubject says something bad about teens
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, RW wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:03:43 -0500
Andy Dorman wrote:
##{ FS_TEEN_BAD
header FS_TEEN_BADSubject =~
/\b(?:teens?|girls?|boys?).{1,15}\b(?:pussy|sex(?:xy|ual)?|slut(?:s|ty)?|ass(?:es|fuck(?:ing|ed)?|whip(?:ing|ped)?|spank(?:ing|ed)?)?|fuck(?:ing|ed)?|rap(?:e|e
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:03:43 -0500
Andy Dorman wrote:
> ##{ FS_TEEN_BAD
> header FS_TEEN_BADSubject =~
> /\b(?:teens?|girls?|boys?).{1,15}\b(?:pussy|sex(?:xy|ual)?|slut(?:s|ty)?|ass(?:es|fuck(?:ing|ed)?|whip(?:ing|ped)?|spank(?:ing|ed)?)?|fuck(?:ing|ed)?|rap(?:e|ed|ing)+)\b/i
> describe FS
David B Funk wrote:
I would like to suggest expanding the FS_TEEN_BAD test to handle this new case:
##{ FS_TEEN_BAD
header FS_TEEN_BADSubject =~
/(?:teen|girl|boy).{1,15}(?:pussy|sex|slut|ass|fuck|rape)/i
describe FS_TEEN_BADSubject says something bad about teens
##} FS
Jason Haar wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
I believe Theo's point is that: Just because it's porn doesn't mean
it's unsolicited. The deciding factor is not "it's porn? therefore SA
should detect it"
Well as my second sentence said - there is ALREADY a rule in
72_active.cf that detects this. That's
John Rudd wrote:
> I believe Theo's point is that: Just because it's porn doesn't mean
> it's unsolicited. The deciding factor is not "it's porn? therefore SA
> should detect it"
>
Well as my second sentence said - there is ALREADY a rule in
72_active.cf that detects this. That's all Andy was
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 15:43, Jason Haar wrote:
> Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>> SpamAssassin is not a porn filter, whatever the variety.
>>
> Yes it is. If it's unsolicited - then it's spam.
I believe Theo's point is that: Just because it's porn doesn't mean
it's unsolicited. The deciding factor is
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> SpamAssassin is not a porn filter, whatever the variety.
>
Yes it is. If it's unsolicited - then it's spam. By that logic, there
should be no textual regex rules - SA should only use RBLs and Bayes.
BTW, the originator was referring to changing an existing official rule
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Andy Dorman wrote:
> However, I was a little surprised that SpamAssassin did not have a test for
> a phrase in the subject that seemed to clearly indicate potential child porn
> like "girls getting f**ked".
SpamAssassin is not a porn filter, whatever the variety.
20 matches
Mail list logo
