:)
This is what Jen sent me, I'm not sure what Doc she got it out of:
> > *************
> > By default, a quantified subpattern is greedy . In other words it
> > matches as many times as possible without causing the rest of the
> > pattern not to match. To change the quantifiers to match the minimum
> > number of times possible, without causing the rest of the
> > pattern not to
> > match, you may use a "?" right after the quantifier.
> >
> > *? Match 0 or more times
> > +? Match 1 or more times
> > ?? Match 0 or 1 time
> > {n}? Match exactly n times
> > {n,}? Match at least n times
> > {n,m}? Match at least n but not more than m times
> > *************************************************
That made sense to me. Maybe {n} is plain regex and {n}? is extended?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Gilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 4:57 PM
> To: 'Chris Santerre'; 'Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Popcorn, Backhair, and Weeds
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Santerre
> > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 3:26 PM
> > To: 'Larry Gilson'; 'Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail)'
> > Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Popcorn, Backhair, and Weeds
> >
> >
> > LOL, I asked her the VERY same question when I first looked
> > at them!!! But I didn't realise that {#}? meant "exactly that
> > many". So 2 things:
> > 1) You won't get a 0 word - tag - 0 word situation
>
> I could be wrong, but I don't believe this is true. As an
> example, an exact
> count would be matched if I omit the comma. /\w{5}/ will
> match exactly five
> word characters. Now if I modify that as
> /\w{5}?/, I believe that means zero or one occurance of five
> word characters
> just as /\w{5}+/ should mean one or more five word
> characters. I don't
> really know if this works or not but I believe this is correct.
>
>
> > 2) Great minds think alike! ;)
> >
> > The upper limits are arguably not needed. But I think it is
> > good to have them bound for now.
>
> Yes, I think you are right. The more boundless it gets, the
> more I can get
> into trouble.
>
>
> > I actually asked myself why she broke them up. Doh!!! I had
> > written this as a tip in my own page!!! These borken up rules
> > will hit multiple times in a single spam message. That is
> > perfect for rules like this. One hit might not make it a true
> > spam. But get 3 and your on to something. 5+ and you got a
> > real party! :)
>
> That makes sense. However, it is less flexible and leaves
> some holes. I do
> see your point and am not arguing it's validity.
>
>
> > I'm answering for her, because she already left for the
> > weekend. I also totally agree that these rules are great! She
> > had tried to combine popcorn and backhair, but I urged
> > against it. I mean, who wants someone's backhair in their popcorn?
> > :p
>
> You are too funny. Thanks for responding Chris.
>
> --Larry
>
> (Oops, did I just bottom post? ;) )
>
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects.
See the people who have HELPED US provide better services:
Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
