On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 17:42 -0700, jdow wrote:
> From: "Martin Gregorie"
> > Something like this will match a sequence of two capitalised name words,
> > including hyphenated ones, and extract the name words:
> >
> > /([A-Z][-a-zA-Z]{1,20})\s([A-Z][-a-zA-Z]{1,20})/
> >
> > and should be fairly eas
From: "Martin Gregorie"
Sent: Monday, 2010/August/09 15:45
On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 07:28 -0500, Daniel McDonald wrote:
So, you are recommending that he use a plugin to query 70,000 records
from a
database, and perform 140,000 body matches, for every e-mail message he
receives?
It should be p
On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 07:28 -0500, Daniel McDonald wrote:
> So, you are recommending that he use a plugin to query 70,000 records from a
> database, and perform 140,000 body matches, for every e-mail message he
> receives?
>
It should be possible to write a rule that recognises names (initials +
c
From: "Daniel McDonald"
Sent: Monday, 2010/August/09 05:28
On 8/9/10 6:58 AM, "Martin Gregorie" wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 14:17 +0300, Henrik K wrote:
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:38:50AM +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 14:00 -0500, Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet)
wro
On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 17:16 +0200, Andreas Dunkl wrote:
> Box-A: Running Ubuntu 10.04, Spamassassin 3.3.1 compiled from source.
> SA is configured to accept remote connections from specified IP´s, which
> works perfectly. No special Setup yet, no external rules, no nothing.
>
> Box-B: Running a Co
Hi there,
For a Test, we setup the following scenario:
Box-A: Running Ubuntu 10.04, Spamassassin 3.3.1 compiled from source.
SA is configured to accept remote connections from specified IP´s, which
works perfectly. No special Setup yet, no external rules, no nothing.
Box-B: Running a Commercia
On 8/9/2010 8:27 AM, Henrik K wrote:
Nope, people constantly underestimate the power of regexes.. of course you
can easily make bad ones, but Perl can run huge lists of simple alternations
FAST.
I downloaded a 1 random name pack, and made a quick hack to regexify it
with my favourite Regexp
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 07:28:42AM -0500, Daniel McDonald wrote:
>
> This technique might cut down the number of rules by 93.5%, but then you
> have to do database lookups and some fancy parsing to verify the hit.
> Don't know if that would be worth it.
Nope, people constantly underestimate the p
On 8/9/10 6:58 AM, "Martin Gregorie" wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 14:17 +0300, Henrik K wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:38:50AM +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 14:00 -0500, Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet)
>>> wrote:
Thanks. We are looking at roughly 70,000 name
On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 14:17 +0300, Henrik K wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:38:50AM +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 14:00 -0500, Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet)
> > wrote:
> > > Thanks. We are looking at roughly 70,000 names and always growing. If I
> > > gave it suffic
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:38:50AM +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 14:00 -0500, Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet)
> wrote:
> > Thanks. We are looking at roughly 70,000 names and always growing. If I
> > gave it sufficient hardware, would you expect that to be practical, or
> >
On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 14:00 -0500, Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet)
wrote:
> Thanks. We are looking at roughly 70,000 names and always growing. If I
> gave it sufficient hardware, would you expect that to be practical, or
> is that totally ridiculous? Any options for a database look up here?
>
I'd
12 matches
Mail list logo
