[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6bc5fef15846b28e5e555e5ebd69ad8@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 04:09:23 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: m3g9tr0n rules
On 09/03/2012 03:01 AM, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 02:44:38AM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> Also, in Jumbo we have the ->N rule reject. Using that should help
>> performance, eg:
>>
>> ->[1-9A-Z] >\0 i\0[ -~]
>> ->[0-9A-Z] o\0[ -~] Q
>
> Yes, thanks. I forgot that we had it. BTW, I am not happy that its
> definition is a bit inconsistent with the similarly looking rule
> command. The reject flag:
>
> ->N reject this rule unless length N or longer is supported
>
> The command:
>
> > N reject the word unless it is greater than N characters long
>
> Notice how it is "length N or longer" in one case and strictly "greater
> than N" in the other. I agree that "length N or longer" may be more
> appropriate for practical use of the reject flag, though.
I think I recall this inconsistence is a good thing more often than not.
I need to revisit my rules and see how "greater than" would affect
ranges with \0 and \p (in this very case it would actually be better).
> Maybe I should use a character other than ">" when merging this feature
> into core. Any suggestions?
IMHO you should keep it anyway. It's a mnemonic, not an actual operator.
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
