Am 27.09.2014 um 15:34 schrieb Alex Crow:
Wasnt that productive?
i would call it funny :-)
I'm hoping the hubris will lead to some self-realisation later but I doubt it
forget 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!
i doubt
looking at the subject mixing two complete different layers of a mail system points out clueless from the very beginning and every time i say the truth which is "do not run a mailserver without qualification and real understanding" i am the bad ass everywhere
such people are responsible for a lot of spam out there because filter out customer-ranges with potential zombies is easy, but mailservers maintained by people lacking the knowledge how to verify that the configuration does what they think is hard
there are two ways to run a mailserver
- knowing what you are doing
- don't do it
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@srv-rhsoft:~]$ postmap -q "From: bla@bla.tw" regexp:/home/harry/Desktop/bla.cf REJECT
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ postmap -q "From: bla@bla.twitter" regexp:/home/harry/Desktop/bla.cf REJECT
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /home/harry/Desktop/bla.cf /^From:.*\@.*\.tw/ REJECT
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ postmap -q "From: bla@bla.tw" regexp:/home/harry/Desktop/bla.cf REJECT
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ postmap -q "From: bla@bla.twitter" regexp:/home/harry/Desktop/bla.cf
[root@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