Regular expressions or "wild cards" and Mail rules

I'm working on building several rules to deal with various emails types i get during the average day at work. some of them are automatically generated by our servers, others are from customers etc. Some of the messages generated by our servers have a blank subject line. Mail won't let me build a rule with a blank subject line (or anything blank for that matter)...is there a way around this?
Also, does mail allow for use of regular expressions? I really don't know anything about regular expressions, but was hoping to learn enough to accomplish some more complex rules if it's possible. If not, i won't bother trying to tackle such an obscure language
Thanks in advance!

No, there is no provision for this in Mail's rules.
However, Mail's Junk Filter is based on a much more sophisticated method (Latent Semantic Analysis) that typically is more effective at detecting this sort of thing, in part because methods based on Regular Expressions usually have an unacceptably high false positive rate if they are made general enough to catch all the possible misspellings.

Similar Messages

Wrong password in Vacation notice and Mail rules in web interface

I have just set up a new Snow Leopard server to try it out. I especially wanted to test the calendarserver and mail and corresponding web interfaces.
I can access the My Page without any problem, but when I try to access the Settings->Vacation Notice and Mail Rules, I am presented a login dialog. When I enter my credentials, it just shakes its head like the password is wrong. I tried with different accounts, and when I used the system admin login I could access those pages, but not for the standard account. What's wrong?

Yes, the problem is the accented caracters !
I had the same problem until I remove the accent in the user information (Workgroup Manager > Users Tab > "user" > Info Tab > Firstname + Lastname).
So it's an encoding error in WPSession python module, and this problem drive the script EmailRules.py around line 162 (wpUser = wpSession.userNamed(username)) to go on the hasLocalEmailErrback def, and so give an error and refuse the authentication, even if we have a local email account.
It's boring that USA developers do not write code that manage well international strings !
It's like this forum : because I have an "é" in my lastname, I was unable to create an account for this forum, until I create a new Apple ID without the "é"
Or like the iPhone Developer certificates at the beginning...

Wild card and blank search for INBOX SEARCH

Hi All,
we are working on SAP CRM 2007. we have an requirement where we want to implement "Wild card and blank search for INBOX SEARCH page". please provide me some pointers to proceed. TIA
rgds,
@run

Hi Ajith,
István is correct, wild card '*' is readily available for any Item name, BP name or other searchable fields.
Thanks,
Gordon

Regular expressions with boolean connectives (AND, OR, NOT) in Java?

I'd like to use regular expression patterns that are made up of simple regex patterns connected via AND, OR, or NOT operators, in order to do some keyword-style pattern matching.
A pattern could look like this:
(.*Is there.*) && (.*library.*) && !((.*badword.*) || (^$))
Is there any Java regex library that allows these operators?
I know that in principle these operators should be available, since Regular languages are closed under union, intersection, and complement.

AND is implicit,
xy -- means x AND yThat's not what I need, though, since this is just
concatenation of a regex.
Thus, /xy/ would not match the string "a y a x",
because y precedes x.So it has to contain both x and y, but they could be
in any order?
You can't do that easily or generally.
"x.*y|y.*x" wouldll work here, but obviously
it will get ugly factorially fast as you add more
terms.You got that right: AND means the regex operands can appear in any order.
That's why I'm looking for some regex library that does all this ugly work for me. Again, from a theoretical point of view, it IS possible to express the described semantics of AND with regular expressions, although they will get rather obfuscated.
Unless somebody has done something similar in java (e.g., for C++, there's Ragel: http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~thurston/ragel/) , I will probably use some finite-state-machine libraries and compile the complex regex's into automata (which can be minimized using well-defined operations on FSMs).
>
You'd probably just be better off doing multiple
calls to matches() or whatever. Yes, that's another possibility, do the boolean operators in Java itself.
Of course, if you
really are just looking for literals, then you can
just use str.contains(a) && !str.contains(b) &&
(str.contains(c) || str.contains(d)). You don't
seem to need regex--at least not from your example.OK, bad example, I do have "real" regexp's in there :)

ICloud and Mail rules

I have set up my computer (2.66 GHz iMac core 2 duo, OSX 10.9.4) with two users to separate my fishing club activities from the rest of my life. I would like to use different MAIL RULES to sort mail on each of the user accounts. I would also like to sync some of my activities such as Calendar, Contacts, Reminders, Notes between the accounts. If I link both accounts over iCloud, the MAIL RULES are synced period!! Unselecting mail for either or both accounts using the iCloud preference has no effect. To prevent syncing RULES requires signing one or the other account out of iCloud. This means, of course, that I am unable to sync Calendars, Contacts, etc. Does anyone know of a work-around for this dilemma?
Thanks in advance.
TomJF

I'm using the same Apple ID for both accounts to allow syncing.
I use QUICKEN to track finances. The main reasons I set up two users is to separate fishing club finances from my personal finances and to separate documents. At this point I have decided to combine the two accounts; sort documents; and open separate QUICKEN accounts as needed. I do think that Apple Mail needs attention to correct inconsistencies such as the one I pointed out.
Thank you for your Comments
TomJF

Regular expressions-how to replace [ and ] characters from a string

Hi,
my input String is "sdf938 [98033]". Now from this given string, i would like to replace the characters occurring within square brackets to empty string, including the square brackets too.
my output String needs to be "sdf938" in this case.. How should I do it using regular expressions? I tried several possible combinations but didn't get the expected results.

"\\s*\\[[^\\]]+\\]"

Applescript and mail rules:

I'm trying to do something with rules that I can't easily do in preferences.
I want to create a rule that does does the following:
If from equals [email protected] OR [email protected]
AND
message contains "lawn" or "Lawn" or "LAWN" or "XYZ" or "xyz" or "ABC"
move message to mailbox M
Or, do I just have to create a ton of rules?
Also, assuming the answer to the above is true, I guess I could write a single apple script that did all my mail processing.
I've searched and searched for such a script. Can anyone point me to something?
I'm an applescript beginer. I just ordered a book, but not here until next week.
Thanks!
Dave

do it this way with an applescript (attach this to a rule action that checks all messages - will probably need some tweaking):
set senderList to {"[email protected]", "[email protected]"}
set keywordList to {"lawn", "Lawn", "LAWN", "XYZ", "xyz", "ABC"}
using terms from application "Mail"
          on perform mail action with messages theMessages for rule theRule
                    tell application "Mail"
                              repeat with thisMessage in theMessages
                                        if sender of thisMessage is in senderList then
                                                  repeat with thisKey in keywordList
                                                            if thisKey is in content of thisMessage then
                                                                      move thisMessage to mailbox "M"
                                                            end if
                                                  end repeat
                                        end if
                              end repeat
                    end tell
          end perform mail action with messages
end using terms from

RFE: Column filtering should allow wild card and list.

Request for enhancement:-
if user enter value1, value2, value3 in filter please convert it SQL expression as
field_name like 'value1' or field_name like 'value2' or field_name like 'value3'
also allow a way in GUI to select multiple item in the filter.
May be by pressing ctrl key to select multiple items.
PS
Recently (30EA4) I noticed you can enter expression in Column filtering box,
and trick it to do this by entering
1.
='' or field_name in('value1', 'value2', 'value3')
2.
like 'Value1%' or field_name like 'Value2%'

As said in the forum announcement, requests should go to the SQL Developer Exchange (so other users can vote and add weight for possible future implementation).
But be clear what area you mean by Column filtering.
Regards,
K.

Regular expression problem: large ORs and stack overflow

I am trying to search a large text block for pattern matches to any of 50,000 strings.
For example:
java.util.regex.Pattern p = Pattern.compile("cat|dog|mouse|blowfish");
// except with 50K animals...
This fails with java.util.regex when compiling the pattern. Around 4K animals I get this error:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.StackOverflowError
at java.util.regex.Pattern$Node.study(Pattern.java:2623)
at java.util.regex.Pattern$Node.study(Pattern.java:2624)
at java.util.regex.Pattern$Slice.study(Pattern.java:3121)
at java.util.regex.Pattern$Branch.study(Pattern.java:3760)
at java.util.regex.Pattern$Branch.study(Pattern.java:3760)
jregex.sourceforge.net fails in a different way. It allows the creation of the pattern (jregex.Pattern p = new Pattern("cat|dog...")), but then after
a single match (Matcher.find()), gets a similar error if there are more than about 6K animals:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.StackOverflowError
at jregex.SearchEntry.reset(jregex/Matcher.java:2281)
at jregex.SearchEntry.reset(jregex/Matcher.java:2281)
Does anyone know how to get past these problems?
Is there another way to do this?
Or is there another java regexp package out there which
can handle large disjunctions, hopefully efficiently?
Thanks!

Good point -- indeed, I don't need the full expressive power of NFAs... yet I don't see a way to use either the java.util.regex or the jregex package and somehow internally perform a NFA to DFA conversion for the subset of power I need.
So does anyone know of a good java DFA regexp package?
Or a way to trick an NFA into doing this pattern match efficiently?
Otherwise, I'll just have to write my own...

Address Book Cards and Mail Contacts have suddenly disappeared!

Help! The power went off for a minute here at the office, shutting everything down. When I restarted, the contents of my address book and all the contacts I had in mail have disappeared. Anybody got any ideas on what I can do? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Welcome to the discussions, malbright.
Try the suggestion in Loading “Apple - Support - Discussions - Address Book has suddenly LOST all my ...” - but it doesn't always work.
AK

Notifications and Mail Rules

I am experiencing some bizarre troubles with Mail. Specifically, I have a complex set of rules in Mail; some of them, automatically move an email from the inbox folder to another folder I created if a specific name or subject is met. Now, when an email that match a rule arrives it is automatically moved according to the rule but it is not notified. An email is notified only if it is not subjected to a rule. Is there a way to get notified whenever an email arrives?

madHelloKitty wrote:
just cutting/pasting the symbol into the rule doesn't work. Ideas?
The symbol may be representing something else in the underlying text. You could try View > Message > Raw Source to see what that is.

Regular Expressions and XML Schemas

The standard regular expression syntax in JDK1.4 doesn't support some of the constructs used by pattern facets in XML schemas.
For example the "Name" type is specified by the pattern "\i\c*" but the java.util.regex regular expression handler throws an exception when it encounters this with the following message:
Illegal/unsupported escape squence near index 1
Is anyone aware of any regular expression java libraries or tools that will cope with the XML syntax?

Thanks, but perhaps I should clarify. I realise that \i\c* is invalid syntax in the java regexp handler. My point is that in XML Schema regular expressions \i is meaningful - in fact it means
"the set of initial name characters, those matched by Letter | '_' | ':' "
I was wondering if anyone knew of a regular expression library that understood and correctly interpreted that.

Does Applescript include and support Regular Expressions?

I'm starting to study regular expressions, and I just discovered AppleScript. So I wondered if AppleScript - or some other Mac utility - offers features that help with regular expressions.
I'm trying to figure out a variety of search and replace operations. For example, I'd like to copy a table, then replace every row in Table A that includes the word "billion," replacing every row with the word "million" in Table B.
I just wondered if AppleScript offers any shortcuts for figuring out complex regex operations like this.
Thanks.

While AppleScript has the usual kinds of comparisons, I don't know if I would consider them regular expressions. The Terminal gives you access to various utilities that do use regular expressions - see the bash and re_format manual pages.

Introduction to regular expressions ...

I'm well aware that there are already some articles on that topic, some people asked me to share some of my knowledge on this topic. Please take a look at this first part and let me know if you find this useful. If yes, I'm going to continue on writing more parts using more and more complicated expressions - if you have questions or problems that you think could be solved through regular expression, please post them.
Introduction
Oracle has always provided some character/string functions in its PL/SQL command set, such as SUBSTR, REPLACE or TRANSLATE. With 10g, Oracle finally gave us, the users, the developers and of course the DBAs regular expressions. However, regular expressions, due to their sometimes cryptic rules, seem to be overlooked quite often, despite the existence of some very interesing use cases. Beeing one of the advocates of regular expression, I thought I'll give the interested audience an introduction to these new functions in several installments.
Having fun with regular expressions - Part 1
Oracle offers the use of regular expression through several functions: REGEXP_INSTR, REGEXP_SUBSTR, REGEXP_REPLACE and REGEXP_LIKE. The second part of each function already gives away its purpose: INSTR for finding a position inside a string, SUBSTR for extracting a part of a string, REPLACE for replacing parts of a string. REGEXP_LIKE is a special case since it could be compared to the LIKE operator and is therefore usually used in comparisons like IF statements or WHERE clauses.
Regular expressions excel, in my opinion, in search and extraction of strings, using that for finding or replacing certain strings or check for certain formatting criterias. They're not very good at formatting strings itself, except for some special cases I'm going to demonstrate.
If you're not familiar with regular expression, you should take a look at the definition in Oracle's user guide Using Regular Expressions With Oracle Database, and please note that there have been some changes and advancements in 10g2. I'll provide examples, that should work on both versions.
Some of you probably already encountered this problem: checking a number inside a string, because, for whatever reason, a column was defined as VARCHAR2 and not as NUMBER as one would have expected.
Let's check for all rows where column col1 does NOT include an unsigned integer. I'll use this SELECT for demonstrating different values and search patterns:
WITH t AS (SELECT '456' col1
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '123x'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT 'x123'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT 'y'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '+789'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '-789'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '159-'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '-1-'
             FROM dual
SELECT t.col1
FROM t
WHERE NOT REGEXP_LIKE(t.col1, '^[0-9]+$')
;Let's take a look at the 2nd argument of this REGEXP function: '^[0-9]+$'. Translated it would mean: start at the beginning of the string, check if there's one or more characters in the range between '0' and '9' (also called a matching character list) until the end of this string. "^", "[", "]", "+", "$" are all Metacharacters.
To understand regular expressions, you have to "think" in regular expressions. Each regular expression tries to "fit" an available string into its pattern and returns a result beeing successful or not, depending on the function. The "art" of using regular expressions is to construct the right search pattern for a certain task. Using functions like TRANSLATE or REPLACE did already teach you using search patterns, regular expressions are just an extension to this paradigma. Another side note: most of the search patterns are placeholders for single characters, not strings.
I'll take this example a bit further. What would happen if we would remove the "$" in our example? "$" means: (until the) end of a string. Without this, this expression would only search digits from the beginning until it encounters either another character or the end of the string. So this time, '123x' would be removed from the SELECTION since it does fit into the pattern.
Another change: we will keep the "$" but remove the "^". This character has several meanings, but in this case it declares: (start from the) beginning of a string. Without it, the function will search for a part of a string that has only digits until the end of the searched string. 'x123' would now be removed from our selection.
Now there's a question: what happens if I remove both, "^" and "$"? Well, just think about it. We now ask to find any string that contains at least one or more digits, so both '123x' and 'x123' will not show up in the result.
So what if I want to look for signed integer, since "+" is also used for a search expression. Escaping is the name of the game. We'll just use '^\+[0-9]+$' Did you notice the "\" before the first "+"? This is now a search pattern for the plus sign.
Should signed integers include negative numbers as well? Of course they should, and I'll once again use a matching character list. In this list, I don't need to do escaping, although it is possible. The result string would now look like this: '^[+-]?[0-9]+$'. Did you notice the "?"? This is another metacharacter that changes the placeholder for plus and minus to an optional placeholder, which means: if there's a "+" or "-", that's ok, if there's none, that's also ok. Only if there's a different character, then again the search pattern will fail.
Addendum: From this on, I found a mistake in my examples. If you would have tested my old examples with test data that would have included multiple signs strings, like "--", "-+", "++", they would have been filtered by the SELECT statement. I mistakenly used the "*" instead of the "?" operator. The reason why this is a bad idea, can also be found in the user guide: the "*" meta character is defined as 0 to multiple occurrences.
Looking at the values, one could ask the question: what about the integers with a trailing sign? Quite simple, right? Let's just add another '[+-] and the search pattern would look like this: '^[+-]?[0-9]+[+-]?$'.
Wait a minute, what happened to the row with the column value "-1-"?
You probably already guessed it: the new pattern qualifies this one also as a valid string. I could now split this pattern into several conditions combined through a logical OR, but there's something even better: a logical OR inside the regular expression. It's symbol is "|", the pipe sign.
Changing the search pattern again to something like this '^[+-]?[0-9]+$|^[0-9]+[+-]?$' [1] would return now the "-1-" value. Do I have to duplicate the same elements like "^" and "$", what about more complicated, repeating elements in future examples? That's where subexpressions/grouping comes into play. If I want only certain parts of the search pattern using an OR operator, we can put those inside round brackets. '^([+-]?[0-9]+|[0-9]+[+-]?)$' serves the same purpose and allows for further checks without duplicating the whole pattern.
Now looking for integers is nice, but what about decimal numbers? Those may be a bit more complicated, but all I have to do is again to think in (meta) characters. I'll just use an example where the decimal point is represented by ".", which again needs escaping, since it's also the place holder in regular expressions for "any character".
Valid decimals in my example would be ".0", "0.0", "0.", "0" (integer of course) but not ".". If you want, you can test it with the TO_NUMBER function. Finding such an unsigned decimal number could then be formulated like this: from the beginning of a string we will either allow a decimal point plus any number of digits OR at least one digits plus an optional decimal point followed by optional any number of digits. Think about it for a minute, how would you formulate such a search pattern?
Compare your solution to this one:
'^(\.[0-9]+|[0-9]+(\.[0-9]*)?)$'
Addendum: Here I have to use both "?" and "*" to make sure, that I can have 0 to many digits after the decimal point, but only 0 to 1 occurrence of this substrings. Otherwise, strings like "1.9.9.9" would be possible, if I would write it like this:
'^(\.[0-9]+|[0-9]+(\.[0-9]*)*)$'Some of you now might say: Hey, what about signed decimal numbers? You could of course combine all the ideas so far and you will end up with a very long and almost unreadable search pattern, or you start combining several regular expression functions. Think about it: Why put all the search patterns into one function? Why not split those into several steps like "check for a valid decimal" and "check for sign".
I'll just use another SELECT to show what I want to do:
WITH t AS (SELECT '0' col1
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '0.'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '.0'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '0.0'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '-1.0'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '.1-'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '.'
             FROM dual
            UNION
           SELECT '-1.1-'
             FROM dual
SELECT t.*
FROM t
;From this select, the only rows I need to find are those with the column values "." and "-1.1-". I'll start this with a check for valid signs. Since I want to combine this with the check for valid decimals, I'll first try to extract a substring with valid signs through the REGEXP_SUBSTR function:
NVL(REGEXP_SUBSTR(t.col1, '^([+-]?[^+-]+|[^+-]+[+-]?)$'), ' ')Remember the OR operator and the matching character collections? But several "^"? Some of the meta characters inside a search pattern can have different meanings, depending on their positions and combination with other meta characters. In this case, the pattern translates into: from the beginning of the string search for "+" or "-" followed by at least another character that is not "+" or "-". The second pattern after the "|" OR operator does the same for a sign at the end of the string.
This only checks for a sign but not if there also only digits and a decimal point inside the string. If the search string fails, for example when we have more than one sign like in the "-1.1-", the function returns NULL. NULL and LIKE don't go together very well, so we'll just add NVL with a default value that tells the LIKE to ignore this string, in this case a space.
All we have to do now is to combine the check for the sign and the check for a valid decimal number, but don't forget an option for the signs at the beginning or end of the string, otherwise your second check will fail on the signed decimals. Are you ready?
Does your solution look a bit like this?
WHERE NOT REGEXP_LIKE(NVL(REGEXP_SUBSTR(t.col1,
                           '^([+-]?[^+-]+|[^+-]+[+-]?)$'),
                       '^[+-]?(\.[0-9]+|[0-9]+(\.[0-9]*)?)[+-]?$'
                      )Now the optional sign checks in the REGEXP_LIKE argument can be added to both ends, since the SUBSTR won't allow any string with signs on both ends. Thinking in regular expression again.
Continued in Introduction to regular expressions ... continued.
C.
Fixed some embarrassing typos ... and mistakes.
cd

Excellent write up CD. Very nice indeed. Hopefully you'll be completing parts 2 and 3 some time soon. And with any luck, your article will encourage others to do the same....I know there's a few I'd like to see and a few I'd like to have a go at writing too :-)

Regular Expressions with Call Policy on VCSe

Hi Guys,
I am working on firming up the call policy on my VCS Expressway to try to better intercept the SIP spam requests it is getting from internet ip numbers. Right now those spam requets are getting rejected by the loop detection but I want to intercept them before they even do a search on the Expressway. It seems that the call policy rules I create without regular expressions are functioning fine but I don't think I have the syntax correct for the regular expressions.
The goal of this rule is to reject any incoming SIP request that has a destination alias format of 7 to 17 digits followed by an @VCSe_IP. so for example it would reject the following attempts: 0123456@VCSe_IP and 0123456789101112@VCSe_IP with one rule.
The policy I created is this: source pattern: unauthenticated user, Destination pattern: \d{7,17}@xx\.xx\.xx\.xx (where xx is the individual octets of the VCSe IP address), Action: reject
However the above policy does not seem to be rejecting the calls before they do a search. I have checked the above expression with the check pattern tool on the VCSe and it comes up with a sucessful match when I try the destination alias of a request that made it through, hence my confusion. Any help you guys could provide would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Steven

Steven,
Default Zone access rules do not relate to this at all and you can keep those set to 'No'.
How exactly are you placing the test calls when attempting to verify this?
I created the following CPL rule on my X7 VCS (With 10.10.10.10 being the IP address of my VCS):
Source pattern:
Destination pattern: \d{7,17}@10\.10\.10\.10
Action: Reject
I then proceeded with placing a SIP call from an unregistered C20, calling the URI '[email protected]' while running a diagnostics log on my VCS with Network log level set to 'DEBUG', and captured the following in that log:
Incoming INVITE:
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,598" Module="network.sip" Level="INFO": Src-ip="10.x.x.x" Src-port="5060"   Detail="Receive Request Method=INVITE, Request-URI=sip:[email protected], Call-ID=9dd19ad75b1063ecf716461b149e9e2a"
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,598" Module="network.sip" Level="DEBUG": Src-ip="10.x.x.x" Src-port="5060"
SIPMSG:
|INVITE sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0
Call processing logic, showing CPL matching:
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: Event="Search Attempted" Service="SIP" Src-alias-type="SIP" Src-alias="10.x.x.x" Dst-alias-type="SIP" Dst-alias="sip:[email protected]" Call-serial-number="0886391c-7d01-11e2-adf5-0050569a08fd" Tag="08863aac-7d01-11e2-bd2e-0050569a08fd" Detail="searchtype:INVITE" Level="1" UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,601"
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: Event="Call Attempted" Service="SIP" Src-ip="10.x.x.x" Src-port="5060" Src-alias-type="SIP" Src-alias="sip:10.x.x.x" Dst-alias-type="SIP" Dst-alias="sip:[email protected]" Call-serial-number="0886391c-7d01-11e2-adf5-0050569a08fd" Tag="08863aac-7d01-11e2-bd2e-0050569a08fd" Protocol="UDP" Auth="NO" Level="1" UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,601"
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,602" Module="network.cpl" Level="DEBUG": Remote-ip="10.x.x.x" Remote-port="5060"   Detail="CPL: "
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,602" Module="network.cpl" Level="DEBUG": Remote-ip="10.x.x.x" Remote-port="5060"   Detail="CPL: "
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,602" Module="network.cpl" Level="DEBUG": Remote-ip="10.x.x.x" Remote-port="5060"   Detail="CPL: matched "
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,602" Module="network.cpl" Level="DEBUG": Remote-ip="10.x.x.x" Remote-port="5060"   Detail="CPL: "
VCS responds to INVITE with 403 Forbidden:
2013-02-22T16:03:36+01:00 vcs02 tvcs: UTCTime="2013-02-22 15:03:36,616" Module="network.sip" Level="DEBUG": Dst-ip="10.x.x.x" Dst-port="5060"
SIPMSG:
|SIP/2.0 403 Forbidden
As you can see, on my VCS everything seems to work as expected. I'd recommend you capture a similar diagnostics log on your own VCS to check what is different in your test call compared to the output above.

Regular expressions or "wild cards" and Mail rules

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for