Re: Whitelisting based on IP address of last external relay
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:52:50AM -0700, John Hardin wrote: Trust here is not about won't spam, and ALL_TRUSTED is not a whitelist. Pfft semantics. I shortcircuit ALL_TRUSTED with a huge trusted_networks list. :-) So yes it's a whitelist for me. I add networks known to be spam free and operated by friends (other govenment entities, consulting firms etc). Everything works fine, I've also added all private networks as said so it works for their internal hops.
Re: Whitelisting based on IP address of last external relay
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Henrik K h...@hege.li wrote: I shortcircuit ALL_TRUSTED with a huge trusted_networks list. :-) So yes it's a whitelist for me. I add networks known to be spam free and operated by friends (other govenment entities, consulting firms etc). Everything works fine, I've also added all private networks as said so it works for their internal hops. At dnswl.org we export our data in trusted_networks format for the data subscribers, but I fear that uptake of this format has been very, very low. This would make forwarding or relaying spam through legitimate intermediaries considerably less painful for recipients. -- Matthias
Re: Whitelisting based on IP address of last external relay
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:52:50AM -0700, John Hardin wrote: Trust here is not about won't spam, and ALL_TRUSTED is not a whitelist. On 31.10.13 10:59, Henrik K wrote: Pfft semantics. I shortcircuit ALL_TRUSTED with a huge trusted_networks list. :-) So yes it's a whitelist for me. I add networks known to be spam free and operated by friends (other govenment entities, consulting firms etc). Everything works fine, I've also added all private networks as said so it works for their internal hops. well, if you re using tusted networks as no spam indicator, it's your problem. However the trust path was never meant that way, and it's not good idea recommend it to others, since they may have to deal with issues resulting of the invalid usade... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Fucking windows! Bring Bill Gates! (Southpark the movie)
Re: Whitelisting based on IP address of last external relay
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:45:45AM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:52:50AM -0700, John Hardin wrote: Trust here is not about won't spam, and ALL_TRUSTED is not a whitelist. On 31.10.13 10:59, Henrik K wrote: Pfft semantics. I shortcircuit ALL_TRUSTED with a huge trusted_networks list. :-) So yes it's a whitelist for me. I add networks known to be spam free and operated by friends (other govenment entities, consulting firms etc). Everything works fine, I've also added all private networks as said so it works for their internal hops. well, if you re using tusted networks as no spam indicator, it's your problem. However the trust path was never meant that way, and it's not good idea recommend it to others, since they may have to deal with issues resulting of the invalid usade... What issues? Most people don't understand the external/trusted concept, and the documentation on all this is vague anyway. OP seemed more than savvy to decide for himself. Then there are people that don't get it no matter what. SA is a framework and you can use it anyway it works best for you.
Re: Whitelisting based on IP address of last external relay
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:52:50AM -0700, John Hardin wrote: Trust here is not about won't spam Btw trusted_networks entities haven't been checked in DNS blacklists since 2008... so in a sense it actually is an whitelist.. ;-) https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5856#c12
trying to understand capture groups/repetition (regex)
Can someone kindly explain a regex?
Lose .{0,2}.{0,1}(KG|Quilos|Kilos|Pounds|Lb)
It matches fine lose 22 pounds, lose 5 pounds. Now 3 digits such as lose
100 pounds it doesnt which is ok.
I was trying to understand those capture groups .{0,2}.{0,1}
. is any character and the 0,2 seems to be repetitions, but i really dont
understand it.
Thanks
Re: trying to understand capture groups/repetition (regex)
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013, Marcio Humpris wrote:
Can someone kindly explain a regex?
Lose .{0,2}.{0,1}(KG|Quilos|Kilos|Pounds|Lb)
It matches fine lose 22 pounds, lose 5 pounds. Now 3 digits such as lose
100 pounds it doesnt which is ok.
I was trying to understand those capture groups .{0,2}.{0,1}
. is any character and the 0,2 seems to be repetitions, but i really dont
understand it.
{0,2} means from zero to 2 repetitions.
Three digits should match that RE because it matches up to three of
anything before the explicit text. However, if it was three digits *plus a
space* it would not match because the space has to be matched too -
that's *four* characters there.
That's an ugly and inefficient RE. If you're trying to match an optional
number there, here's a much better way to do it:
/Lose (?:\d+\s)?(?:KG|Quilos|Kilos|Pounds|Lb)/
Breakdown:
Lose , followed by
(one or more digits followed by a space) maybe?, followed by
(one of the specified strings)
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
---
...the Fates notice those who buy chainsaws...
-- www.darwinawards.com
---
Today: Halloween
