Dovecot Sieve and Postfix header_checks Issue

[Alex Crow]

Wasnt that productive?

I'm hoping the hubris will lead to some self-realisation later but I 
doubt it.

Also felt like he was testing us, posting regexes for us to look at and 
then when we pointed out the errors in them suddenly declaring they were 
deliberate errors for testing!

Alex

On 27/09/14 14:28, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 27.09.2014 um 15:16 schrieb Klaipedaville on Google:
>>> Alex:
>>> if it was
>>>
>>> ^From:.*\@.*\.tw$
>>> it would not.
>> $ is optional and it only means the end of expression, the rule works either with or without it in the problem I was trying to solve.
>>
>>> And again according to the man page, $ is usable:
>>> "/^(.*)-outgoing@(.*)$/"
>> This is again an option ($), not a must, the rule would be valid either way.
> you are a ignorant fool
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> [root at srv-rhsoft:~]$ postmap -q "From: bla at bla.tw" regexp:/home/harry/Desktop/bla.cf
> REJECT
>
> [root at srv-rhsoft:~]$ postmap -q "From: bla at bla.twitter" regexp:/home/harry/Desktop/bla.cf
> REJECT
>
> [root at srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /home/harry/Desktop/bla.cf
> /^From:.*\@.*\.tw/ REJECT
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> [root at srv-rhsoft:~]$ postmap -q "From: bla at bla.tw" regexp:/home/harry/Desktop/bla.cf
> REJECT
>
> [root at srv-rhsoft:~]$ postmap -q "From: bla at bla.twitter" regexp:/home/harry/Desktop/bla.cf
>
> [root at srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /home/harry/Desktop/bla.cf
> /^From:.*\@.*\.tw$/ REJECT
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
>>> You seem to think that you are the worlds greatest regexp expert and to
>>> be frank it comes off as a bit arrogant.
> knowledge often comes arrogant to ignorant people
>
>> I am not the world greatest regexp expert but definitely not the worst one
> you are the worst one because you argue instead realize your error
>
>> My rules work the way I want and need them to work. Period.
> no they don't damned
>
>> I have neither time no desire to prove that 2+2=4
> no, but you telling us it's 5
>
>> I will not clutter this list speaking off Dovecot issues any more as I feel sorry for time wasted for list readers
> please do so
>