Linda A. Walsh wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>> Linda A. Walsh wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I know sed/[e]grep/bash{2,3} et al. RE's, just need to know
>>> which syntax is supported, i.e. old "sh", bash2 compatible, bash3
>>> (w/iterators),
>>> sed compat RE's, grep (w/POSIX support), egrep (w/alternation)...etc.
>>
>>
>> FWIW, perl regexes are based on, and compatible with posix extended
>> regular
>> expressions.
>>
> ---
> I thought some of the "(?..)" constructs were experimental
> and not compatible with the with strict POSIX usage?
I meant that Perl regexes are a superset of posix extended regexes.
So the compatibility is really one way. Perl will run a posix extended regex,
but a engine based extended regex will fail to run a full-blown perl regex.
>> To quote the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf manpage:
>
> ---
> Yeay!! That's what I was looking for...Didn't know the right manpage. Was
> just looking at Spamassassin, Mail::Spamassassin, sa-learn, spamc,
> spamd...just
> didn't go far enough. Thanks!
Yes.. that's the important manpage..
