Mailing List SIMS@mail.stalker.com Message #6394
From: Bill Cole <listbill@scconsult.com>
Subject: Re: (not so) Obvious spam address
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:24:58 -0400
To: SIMS Discussions <SIMS@mail.stalker.com>
At 12:34 PM -0700 7/5/00, Daniel Solomons  imposed structure on a stream
of electrons, yielding:
>Hello -
>
>At 12:20 PM -0700 7/5/00, Hal Taylor wrote:
>>Writing an algorithm to check the
>>validity of an email address based on the characters it contains is not
>>straightforward.
>
>No? Isn't that's what computers are for?
>
>>  And couldn't you imagine a valid user name that has two
>>sets of numbers, ie, "19fred67" or "2cool4u"?
>
>I can imagine it. But I've only *seen* it - several thousand times a
>day - for spam.

But there is nothing at all which makes it inherently wrong. MAYBE it is
not possible in limited cases (like all numbers for an AOL local part) but
as a general case there is nothing inherently bogus about an address
matching the regular expression [0-9]+[a-zA-Z]+[0-9]+.*@.* and in fact I
have multiple regular correspondents with such addresses.

IOW: what you recognize as 'obvious spam' isn't.  It would be a very bad
rule for me to use. Maybe you would want to use it.

It would certainly be nice for the SIMS router to have a full RE parser to
allow more complex rules The fact that there are standard RE libraries
available as easily portable standard C open source under a BSD-ish
license makes that something that Stalker might be persuaded to do without
too much effort.

--
Bill Cole
MAPS L.L.C. Consulting Services Group
wkc@mail-abuse.org (work)
bill@scconsult.com (personal)
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster