Last modified: 2011-11-02 22:15:23 UTC
In a regex like .*[abc\#].* <newaccountonly> The hash is taken to be the start of a comment, even when escaped. Hashes should be checked to see if they're escaped - if so it must not be the beginning of a comment (since anything coming before the hash on that line is, by definition, /not/ part of the comment, but instead part of the regex. Any comment beginning with \# is incorrect, but that should be valid within regexes.
(In reply to comment #0) > In a regex like > .*[abc\#].* <newaccountonly> > The hash is taken to be the start of a comment, even when escaped. Hashes > should be checked to see if they're escaped - if so it must not be the > beginning of a comment (since anything coming before the hash on that line is, > by definition, /not/ part of the comment, but instead part of the regex. Any > comment beginning with \# is incorrect, but that should be valid within > regexes. > Doesn't matter for titleblacklist as # is invalid in titles and usernames, but might matter for spam blacklist. If we want to whitelist a specific section or something, it'd be impossible to do so, I think.
I'm not sure this is necessary. #'s only meaning within URLs is as a [[fragment identifier]] for the client (it's not even sent as part of an HTTP request, so the server never sees it); I can't think of any cases where spam-blacklisting a specific fragment identifier would have any useful purpose.
(In reply to comment #2) > I'm not sure this is necessary. #'s only meaning within URLs is as a [[fragment > identifier]] for the client (it's not even sent as part of an HTTP request, so > the server never sees it); I can't think of any cases where spam-blacklisting a > specific fragment identifier would have any useful purpose. > No, however the whitelist uses the same syntax. Nonetheless, I can't offhand think of a case where this bug would actually cause problems; it was made on the recommendation of someone else (Splarka, I think).
You can use \x23 instead of #. So I guess this ticket is a wontfix candidate?
