OK, I'll add that to my TODO list.  I guess I need to figure out how to 
parse regexps. :)

-- Sam Clippinger

Marc Van Houwelingen wrote:
> I was looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_address, which does 
> not list the brackets.
> 
> Either way, the regexp flag sounds perfect. It may be a bit complicated, but 
> of course does not have to be used.
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Sam Clippinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "spamdyke users" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] More robust wildcardsin 
> recipient-whitelist-file?
> 
> 
>> Actually, brackets are legal in email addresses.  The full list of legal
>> characters is (as far as I know):
>> a-z A-Z 0-9 @ / & : . # [ ] - " \ _ = , !
>> On my keyboard, that doesn't leave much and I can't guarantee the
>> remaining characters aren't legal either.  I'm not sure I want to use a
>> tilde as a wildcard simply because it's available -- it's not very
>> intuitive.
>>
>> This just occurred to me -- what about creating a new flag to allow
>> regular expressions?  For example, "recipient-whitelist-file" would use
>> the existing logic but "recipient-whitelist-file-regexp" would allow
>> regular expressions and wildcards.  That way, nearly everyone would
>> continue using the existing system but if someone needed more
>> flexibility they could create a second file and use the new flag.  Or
>> does that sound too complicated?
>>
>> -- Sam Clippinger
>>
>> Marc Van Houwelingen wrote:
>>> I'm pretty sure that square brackets are not valid email address 
>>> characters.
>>> Given this, maybe some sort of scheme where [] would delineate wildcards.
>>> Regular expressions may not be so easy, since [] are meaningful inside 
>>> them,
>>> but perhaps something simple like and asterisk representing zero or more
>>> "any" char, and a question mark representing a single "any" char.
>>>
>>> Like this:
>>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> would match:
>>>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> but not [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> would match:
>>>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> but not [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Sam Clippinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "spamdyke users" <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 12:18 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] More robust wildcards
>>> inrecipient-whitelist-file?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, starting a line with "@" is the only available wildcard.  I thought
>>>> about doing more, just like you're asking about, but I got hung up on
>>>> the complexities.
>>>>
>>>> Email addresses allow so many characters that it's hard to find a good
>>>> way to indicate a wildcard.  I was also afraid that no matter what I
>>>> tried to implement, it wouldn't work for all situations -- the best
>>>> solution would be to just use full regular expressions.  Then I became
>>>> concerned that using regular expressions would cause problems if someone
>>>> just filled the file with email addresses and they wound up being
>>>> matched as regexps.  That's where my thinking ended and I went with the
>>>> current solution.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?  I'm open to suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> -- Sam Clippinger
>>>>
>>>> Marc Van Houwelingen wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for adding the "recipient-whitelist-file" feature. I have a 
>>>>> quick
>>>>> question: Is starting a line with "@" the only wildcard ability?
>>>>>
>>>>> What I would like to do is have something like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> #--recipient-blacklist-file:---
>>>>> @mydomain.com
>>>>> #------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> #--recipient-whitelist-file:---
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> #------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> The intention is for spamdyke to block all email coming in for that
>>>>> domain,
>>>>> except anything matching "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"   (eg
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc)
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this possible now, or perhaps in future versions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> spamdyke-users mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> spamdyke-users mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> spamdyke-users mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
>> _______________________________________________
>> spamdyke-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spamdyke-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
_______________________________________________
spamdyke-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Reply via email to