On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 17:07 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> header FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS From =~ /\d{6,}[a-z._-][a-z0-9._-]{0,50}@/i
Why not limit it to the address part only? That RE matches against the
real name, too. This feels overly complicated anyway, to express "starts
with numbers, but doe
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 15:13 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> >>> header FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS From =~ /\d{6,}[a-z._-][a-z0-9._-]{0,50}@/i
> >> This regex requires that the 7th character be non-numeric.
>
> > Nope - only that a character after the first
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
header FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS From =~ /\d{6,}[a-z._-][a-z0-9._-]{0,50}@/i
This regex requires that the 7th character be non-numeric.
Nope - only that a character after the first six is a legal address
character but non-numeric.
Hmmm My bad.
I f
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 13:05 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > header FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS From =~ /\d{6,}[a-z._-][a-z0-9._-]{0,50}@/i
>
> This regex requires that the 7th character be non-numeric.
>
Nope - only that a character after the first six is
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
header FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS From =~ /\d{6,}[a-z._-][a-z0-9._-]{0,50}@/i
This regex requires that the 7th character be non-numeric.
Look at the regex I posted It covers all cases with six leading
digits that is not a purely numeric address.
/^\
On 2010/04/13 12:07 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
As I don't get either spam or ham from this type of address, I'd be
pleased if anybody who does can put an example on Pastebin and post the
link here.
http://pastebin.com/eTsbwZBb
phone number changed to protect the innocent.
--
/Jason
smi
On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 09:39 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> I would PROPOSE (to those with a nice testing rig) that the rule be
> modified so that there has to be at least one non-numeric character after
> the initial first 6 digits ie. /^\d{6,}\S*[^\d\s]\S*@/
>
I'm wondering why exactly six
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Seriously, you shouldn't be asking that question. The fundamental flaw
here is in the assumption that an all-number mailbox user ID is virtually
certain to be spam. It is not. Clearly, the default score assignment to
that rule is too high.
Well,
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 19:30 -0400, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> On 4/12/2010 4:58 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > I had quite a bit to do with phone numbers en mass a while back. My
> > initial reaction is that its not easy: not only do phone numbers vary in
> > length between locales, but even such thing
On 4/12/2010 4:26 PM, Bob O'Brien wrote:
Other media references, too: 90210, 4100, I'm sure there are
more which have been chosen by fans of one theme or another.
Back in the late 1990s, I remember hearing that some site (maybe
Hotmail?) was restricted to US residents, but didn't check very
t
On 4/12/2010 4:58 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
I had quite a bit to do with phone numbers en mass a while back. My
initial reaction is that its not easy: not only do phone numbers vary in
length between locales, but even such things as the 'international
dialing' and non-local-call prefix vary from
Martin Gregorie wrote:
However, there is one fairly straight forward question that can be
easily answered: has anybody ever seen an all-number mailbox/user id in
circumstances where it *isn't* a phone number?
Yes. I have seen personal addresses with all-digit LHS.
It's almost always been "
On 4/12/2010 1:58 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 16:29 -0400, Jason Bertoch wrote:
I just received a FP report on a message sent from a phone via their
text-to-email gateway. FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS matched because the
sender's address is [10-digit phone numb...@somecarrier.co
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 16:29 -0400, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> I just received a FP report on a message sent from a phone via their
> text-to-email gateway. FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS matched because the
> sender's address is [10-digit phone numb...@somecarrier.com.
>
> My initial instinct was to file a
I just received a FP report on a message sent from a phone via their
text-to-email gateway. FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS matched because the
sender's address is [10-digit phone numb...@somecarrier.com.
My initial instinct was to file a bug suggesting there be a check in the
rule to see if there ar
15 matches
Mail list logo
