Re: TB!, Secure Bat TB! Pro
Hello Graham, On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 11:14:13 +0100 (03.06.03 16:14 my local time) you wrote about TB!, Secure Bat TB! Pro at least in part: FG but WHAT is TB! Pro? The Bat with hardware token eToken from Aladdin instead of iKey FG ) and how come it is at version 1.70? Pro was released by Aladdin and had separate versioning (1.70 is equal some betas of 1.54) FG Simple explanations appreciated. I tried... JFYI - it's only SecureBat now, with additional modification SecureBat/eToken... In common - eToken is nice device, at least for storing S/MIME certificates in it -- Best regards, Alexander Leschinsky - MOTD: When the sun comes up, I have morals again. Elayne Boosler http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Add_Reference Now Works
Hello TB Tech List, The filter found in The Bat! Library does not function as advertised. The problem is in the export template. The following macro was tested with all 21 possible locations of multi-line In-Reply-To and References lines (since I don't know the official rules as to where these must be). What are the 21 locations? If 'I' represents a set of In-Reply-To lines, 'R' represents a set of Reference lines and '-' represents other header lines, the 21 possible locations are: -, I-, -I-, -I, R-, -R-,-R, IR-, I-R-, I-R, -IR-, -I-R, -IR, -I-R-, RI-, R-I-, R-I, -RI-, -R-I, -RI, -R-I- --8---cut here---start-8--- %SetPattRegExp=(?ismx) (?: (?: (.*?) # SubPatt 1 (?: ^In-Reply-To: | ^References: ) .*?\n(?:\s.*?\n)* (.*?) # SubPatt 2 (?: ^In-Reply-To: | ^References: ) .*?\n(?:\s.*?\n)* (.*?) # SubPatt 3 ) | (?: (.*?) # SubPatt 4 (?: ^In-Reply-To: | ^References: ) .*?\n(?:\s.*?\n)* (.*?) # SubPatt 5 ) | (.*?)# SubPatt 6 ) \n\n\z%- %RegExpBlindMatch=%Headers%- %SubPatt=1%SubPatt=2%SubPatt=3%- %SubPatt=4%SubPatt=5%SubPatt=6%- In-Reply-To: %ClipBoard %Text%- --8---cut here---end---8--- The Remove_Reference export template is very similar. The only difference is that it ends with these two lines: %SubPatt=4%SubPatt=5%SubPatt=6 %Text%- I don't believe this set of filters will work with attachments. One way of doing that is to export the mail as a Unix mailbox file and running an external utility to do the deed. Please let me know if you see any improvements or problems I've overlooked. I plan to post the filters (in LDI Format ready to be pasted into the Sorting Office) in TBUDL after this List has had a chance to comment. -- Best regards, Bill God created sex. Priests created marriage. [Voltaire] http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Add_Reference Now Works
* Bill McCarthy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The filter found in The Bat! Library does not function as
advertised. The problem is in the export template. The following
macro was tested with all 21 possible locations of multi-line
In-Reply-To and References lines (since I don't know the official
rules as to where these must be).
I didn't do that much tests, but I think you can shorten this QT a bit.
--8---cut here---start-8---
%SetPattRegExp=(?ismx)
(?:
(?:
(.*?) # SubPatt 1
1 (?:
1 ^In-Reply-To: | ^References:
1 )
1 .*?\n(?:\s.*?\n)*
X (.*?) # SubPatt 2
2 (?:
2 ^In-Reply-To: | ^References:
2 )
2 .*?\n(?:\s.*?\n)*
X (.*?) # SubPatt 3
)
|
(?:
(.*?) # SubPatt 4
3 (?:
3 ^In-Reply-To: | ^References:
3 )
3 .*?\n(?:\s.*?\n)*
X (.*?) # SubPatt 5
)
|
X (.*?)# SubPatt 6
)
[...]
--8---cut here---end---8---
There are three equal parts (1, 2, 3) that match an IRT or Refereces
header. Each followed by an (.*?) (X). You first check for the
existance of both headers, then for only 1 or none.
--8---cut here---start-8---
%SetPattRegExp=(?ismx)
(?:
(?:
(.*?) # SubPatt 1
(?:
(?:
^In-Reply-To: | ^References:
)
.*?\n(?:\s.*?\n)*
(.*?)# SubPatt 2
){0,2} # - !!!
)
)
\n+\z%-
%RegExpBlindMatch=%Headers%-
%SubPatt=1%SubPatt=2
In-Reply-To: %ClipBoard
%Text%-
--8---cut here---end---8---
Again, this is not fully tested, but I think it is just a shorter
version of your pattern. And I hope it works as good as yours.
Please let me know if you see any improvements or problems I've
overlooked.
I didn't see any problems (maybe the \n\n should be a \n+, but I
don't know). Actually I'm not even sure if this shorter version is
an improvement.
--
Carsten
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: TB!, Secure Bat TB! Pro
Dennis Hays [DH] wrote: DH It's only for professionals... so don't worry about it too much. g moderator Note: This moderator's interjection is a note to all readers and not just to the person being replied to, even if their post may have instigated this reply. Please don't feel singled out Dennis. Top posting is not encouraged and we actually request that you not do so on this list because a) It makes it difficult to glean context from what you typed at the top of the message and b) It encourages excessive quoting. We would much prefer if you quote just that much of the message to which you're replying so we know what it is you're referring to, and then below the quotation type your response. If you're responding to more than one parts of the original, then quote each part separately and follow each part with your response. Now, I know that you may not personally prefer this format and disagree some of the reasoning here, and I very much respect this. However, this is the format that most of the active members here prefer and all members are expected, and are being asked to use the format that will make most of the active membership here comfortable reading your posts. You'll likely get a more responsive group when you post using a style that is comfortable for them to read and understand. Thanks very much reading. :) /moderator -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Add_Reference Now Works
Thanks, Carsten, for looking this over. I appreciate your efforts.
On Tue 3-Jun-03 6:21pm-0400, Carsten Thönges wrote:
There are three equal parts (1, 2, 3) that match an IRT or Refereces
header. Each followed by an (.*?) (X). You first check for the
existance of both headers, then for only 1 or none.
){0,2} # - !!!
I had tried that on an earlier pass, but gave up on it. To save time
testing, I set up a little predictive test in Vim. Of the 21
possibilities, 13 worked and 8 failed. Looking closer at the
failures, they represent all the possibilities within header info
between the IRT and References. In each case the info between was
lost in the result.
I then preceded to test the actual short PCRE macro and found the
predictive model was accurate. All 8 cases failed. When the IRT and
References were at each end of the header, the failure was spectacular
:-)
So what's happening? Suppose we have:
Blk1 IRT Blk2 Ref Blk3
Block 1 goes to \1, Blk2 goes to \2, then Blk3 replaces \2 - the
middle gets lost. The other seven cases can be explained the same
way - in have the 8 failed cases the middle is replaced with an empty
Blk3.
Again, this is not fully tested, but I think it is just a shorter
version of your pattern. And I hope it works as good as yours.
Although it works in all cases where the IRT and References are
adjacent, even if the official rules call for them to be that way, I
prefer not to count on it.
I didn't see any problems (maybe the \n\n should be a \n+, but I
don't know). Actually I'm not even sure if this shorter version is
an improvement.
I tried replacing \n\n with \n+. In only worked sometimes. If the
last line contained: Last Line Info
I either got:
Last Line InfoIn-Reply-To:
Body
Or the correct:
Last Line Info
In-Reply-To:
Body
I found playing around with the spaces between the header and text to
be the most frustrating. I used combinations of \n and \z or \Z and
even $ with I was using {?-m). I'm still at the guess and try stage
with this particular aspect of PCRE.
--
Best regards,
Bill
It was once proposed that all religions persuasions should be free and
their worship publicly exercised. We Catholics have rejected this article
as contrary to Roman Catholic canon law.
[Pope Pius VII, 1808]
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
