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 things as
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.
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 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 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 a
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
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 six is a
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 does
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
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 bug
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 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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
