> Does anybody see a reason against filtering on these characters in > the senders email address?
Yes: a) The '+' sign is in common use by well-behaved list managers, and is in fact suggested by list exploder RFCs. It is reasonable, in fact preferable, to expect legitimate bulk mail to use bounce management syntax. b) The '=' is used in encoded usernames by innocent, technical, but (eek!) non-US users. The RFC mavens are still in debate on whether addresses thus encoded are required to be intelligently decoded by MTAs/MUAs, but in either case, it is done and such messages are processed by leading mail servers. It is not on its own evidence of spam. c) The '"' is a permissible username encapsulator in notable use by some groupware-to-SMTP gateways. I can't really see this having a preponderance of true positives. No: a) On the other hand, the '*' and '--' don't seem innocent to me, but someone else may disagree. Not to say that such filtering wouldn't function well as part of a weighted system. -Sandy --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
