Good Afternoon,
I have exhausted my googling and best-guess ideas, so I hope someone here has an idea of whether this is possible or not.
I am using Exchange Server 2010 (vanilla) in a test environment and trying to create a Hub Transport Rule using the Exchange Management Console. The requirements of the rules filtering are similar to the following scenario:
1.) If a recipient's address matches (ends with) "#testdomain.com" AND (begins with) "john"
2.) If the sender's address matches (ends with) "#testdomain.com"
3.) Copy the message to the "SupervisorOfJohns#testdomain.com" mailbox
I have no problems doing items 2 and 3, but I cannot figure out how to get item 1 in the same condition. I have come across some threads that simply concluded that MS goofed on this, but I am hesitant to fault them for something which seems like it should be really straightforward. I must be missing something. Expressions I have tried so far...:
1.) (^john)(#testdomain.com$)
2.) ^(john)(#testdomain.com)$
3.) (^john)#testdomain.com
4.) ^john #testdomain.com$
5.) ^(john)#testdomain.com
If you use the interface and +Add them as two separate entries, it treats them as an OR clause (if a recipient address begins with "john", OR it ends with "#testdomain.com"). As you can see from my simplistic attempts, I have barely any clue what can/should work in this case. Any suggestions or ideas would be appreciated.
Respectfully,
B. Whitman
Here's what I ended up using:
john\w*#testdomain.com
The reasoning behind the question is that I'm trying to make a service to catch certain e-mails and do some processing with them. I also wanted to restrict the senders/recipients to certain domains (though some checking will also be done with the processing service). Thanks to hjpotter92 for his solutions!
Related
I add an image in order to explain myself better.
I have 300 something ports in a expression. I have created the equivalent number of groups in a union. I want each port of this expression to go to a port/field of the Union. One to one relationship. It seems like powercenter is not able to do this with autolink, or at least I'm unable to find the proper way to do this. How could I work arround this issue? Because I've been told that is likely that in a few days it will be more than 700 ports, and the amount it takes to do by hand is quite insane. Thanks in advance.
I'm surprised it validates... union is for homogenous sources but you seem to be trying to pivot your data (in which case I'd suggest using another transformation i.e. a normalizer and Informatica will start behaving as expected)
Possible solution: make a bunch of connections, save and export the file as xml, go to the lines when the connections are done, and replace that zone with as many rows as you need.
What I did specifically was to get the original rows, change the names as appropiate with the help of notepad++ and excel, and then go back to the original file and replace all of it. Check everything three times, and import the file back to powercenter.
I say possible solution because it's messy and dirty, but even though it may lead to mistakes I feel like the amount is vastly inferior and you have the versioning on your side, so just save before exporting. If someone with more experience could tell me it's thoughts about this, it would be a great opportunity to learn, just leaving this in case it goes unanswered
I'm new to ExactTarget, and I'm having some hard time to do something that should be simple.
We direct our e-mails using a list of All Subscribers, and filter then using data extensions. When I go on the tracking page of a particular e-mail, there it is in the Summary, all the info and the Data Extensions, on the format:
name (number) sent (Using All Subscribers) (number sent)
The thing is, when I do a tracking extract I don't get this information. I tried to extract everything that was possible, and couldn't get this information. All I get is, for each sendID (for each subscriber in fact), the ListID, which will always be the same (the one for All Subscribers). I want to know which segment we used.
Tried to deep dive on the SOAP API, with no luck, again all I can retrieve is the List, never the data extension.
This must be retrievable, once it is on the Tracking Summary. So my question is how do I retrieve is.
I considered programming a simple robot to scrape for this info, but there must be a better way.
Thanks
Guess nobody cares much, but in case someone faces the same problem, I've got a final answer for support, the information is not retrievable (except through the tracking summary, which must be accessed one by one) through API or UI
But a custom report can be asked for. Still waiting to see if it's free of charge (should be, right? As it's something that should be available in first place)
I have a forum spammer who keeps registering new accounts on my forum and posting his website. I already have a filter which removes all tags and spaces and looks for "supersportasia" but he is circumventing it by using "Super5Sport5Asia5" and then changing the 5s to white color so it becomes like "Super Sport Asia" with the hidden 5s. Is there a way to parse it better? It may not only be 5s it could be other chars....
Super.*Sport.*Asia
However, I'd block by IP (range). It'll only take a minute to come up with Mega6Fun6Europe.
You could first try with super.*sport.*asia case insensitive,
But
Fighting spammer is a cat&mouse race. The regex I suggested you filters any combination of "noise" character as soon as the words are written integer.
Drawback: a legitimate message containing the above words in sequence (in any part) will be rejected
Superman is becoming a sport hero, and is said to be born in Asia
Also
The spammer may start complicating the message a lot
s-u-p-e-r_s-p-o-r-t_a-s-i-a
could be still distinguished.
You would better focus on different anti-spam techniques like CAPTCHA and also don't forget to ban /24 subnets when you get your spammer
Edit
Fear of TOR? I don't currently have reference to say, but I knew that TOR relays are publicly distinguishable. At least Wikipedia knows if you are running TOR or not. You might want to ask them, unless your spammer uses a hidden relay.
Many websites commonly ban proxies against "write" access (so you can read them anonymously)
Currently I'm working on a Server-Client system which will be the backbone of my application.
I have to find the best way to send requests and handle them on the server-side.
The server-side should be able to handle requests like this one:
getPortfolio -i 2 -d all
In an old project I decided to send such a request as string and the server application had to look up the first part of the string ("getPortfolio"). Afterwards the server application had to find the correct method in a map which linked the methods with the the first part of the string ("getPortfolio"). The second part ("-i 2 -d all") got passed as parameter and the method itself had to handle this string/parameter.
I doubt that this is the best solution in order to handle many different requests.
Rgds
Layne
To me it seems you're having two different questions.
For the socket part, I suggest you use Beej's guide to socket programming if you want to have full control about what you do. If you don't want to/don't have the time to treat this part yourself, you can just use a C++ socket library as well. There are plenty of them; I only used this one so far, but others might be as just good (or even better).
Regarding your parsing algorithm, you may first write down everything about the message format, so you'll have a strict guideline to follow. Then process step by step:
First, extract the "first word" and just keep the following parameters in some list. Check if the first word is valid and if it is known. If the "first word" does not match with any of the predefined existing functions, just ignore the message (and eventually report the error to the client application).
Once you have the matching function, simply call it passing the others parameters.
This way, each function will do a specific task and your code will be splitted in an elegant way.
Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to be any more explicit since we somehow lack of details here.
I'm trying to write a chat client for a popular network. The original client is proprietary, and is about 15 GB larger than I would like. (To be fair, others call it a game.)
There is absolutely no documentation available for the protocol on the internet, and most search results only come back with the client's scripting interface. I can understand that, since used in the wrong way, it could lead to ruining other people's experience.
I've downloaded the source code of a couple of alternative servers, including the one I want to connect to, but those
contain no documentation other than install instructions
are poorly commented (I did a superficial browsing)
are HUGE (the src folder of the target server contains 12 MB worth of .cpp and .h files), and grep didn't find anything related
I've also tried searching their forums and contacting the maintainers of the server, but so far, no luck.
Packet sniffing isn't likely to help, as the protocol relies heavily on encryption.
At this point, all my hope is my ability to chew through an ungodly amount of code. How do I start?
Edit: A related question.
If your original code is encrypted with some well known library like OpenSSL or Ctypto++ it might be useful to write your wrapper for the main entry points of these libraries, then delagating the call to the actual library. If you make such substitution and build the project successfully, you will be able to trace everything which goes out in the plain text way.
If your project is not using third party encryption libs, hopefully it is still possible to substitute the encryption routines with some wrappers which trace their input and then delegate encryption to the actual code.
Your bet is that usually enctyption is implemented in separate, relatively small number of source files so that should be easier for you to track input/output in these files.
Good luck!
I'd say
find the command that is used to send data through the socket (the call depends on the network library)
find references of this command and unroll from there. If you can modify-recompile the server code, it might help.
On the way, you will be able to log decrypted (or, more likely, not yet encrypted) network activity.
IMO, the best answer is to read the source code of the alternative server. Try using a good C++ IDE to help you. It will make a lot of difference.
It is likely that the protocol related material you need to understand will be limited to a subset of the files. These will contain references to network sockets and things. Start from there and work outwards as far as you need to.
A viable approach is to tackle this as a crypto challenge. That makes it easy, because you control so much.
For instance, you can use a current client to send a known message to the server, and then check server memory for that string. Once you've found out in which object the string ends, it also becomes possible to trace its ancestry through the code. Set a breakpoint on any non-const method of the object, and find the stacktraces. This gives you a live view of how messages arrive at the server, and a list of core functions essential to message processing. You can next find related functions (caller/callee of the functions on your list).