On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Charlie Watts wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > <snip/>
> >
> > Wouldn't an easier fix be:
> >
> > /^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
>
> That's just way too simple, Matt. Let's try for something more
> complicated. :-)
>
> But it doesn't have the "must have at least XX characters" element that
> the other test has. Does that matter? I'm not sure.
It's pretty likely that it doesn't matter since the other regexp was
obviously quite broken anyway ;-)
I think the original intention of the count was to make sure we had at
least three upper case chars, in which case you could get away with:
/^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*?[A-Z]{3,}([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
That needs testing though to make sure it doesn't backtrack horribly (I
don't think it will, but I could be wrong).
--
Matt.
<:->get a SMart net</:->
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
