Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:15:02PM +0200, Per Jessen wrote: >> Anyway, maybe it makes sense to some to look for incorrectly rot13'd >> email-addresses, but why not catch the correctly rot13'd also? > > Is anyone just using rot13 for address identification? > And if so, are there enough people doing it to make the rule > worthwhile? And if so, is there a computationally easy way to > distinguish "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ? They > both look like valid email addresses from a simple RE standpoint. > > The only way I can think of is to insert the known valid TLDs into the > RE, which becomes painful. Also, some TLDs (country codes) rot13 > translate into other valid TLDs: it/vg, at/ng, se/fr, etc. > > In the end, I would guess it doesn't happen enough to make it > worthwhile to look for, whereas the other single substitution methods > were being used a lot at one point.
To me it's a pretty much moot point - OBSCURED_EMAIL with its 1.6points is of little use. I would certainly suggest reducing the default score to a lot less. (are there really other single substitution methods in common use that translate '@' to '^' ?) /Per Jessen, Zürich
