May I suggest going along much simpler lines and just matching on antispam in
the local_part? Not only will the match be foolproof, but it has a shot at
catching other addresses like this being used for similar purposes and
requires less cpu time per address coming in. The odds of a spammer using
antispam in the localpart are pretty low and probably a risk worth taking.
-David Powers
On Tuesday 28 September 2004 9:10 pm, Matt wrote: > Stephen Gran wrote:
> > My idea didn't work, and neither do yours (thanks though) and neither
> > does antispam\d+@west\.verizon\.net, which I would have thought would
> > work.
>
> Not sure about pcre specifics, but a regexp match would be along the
> lines of:
>
> antispam.+@west\.verizon\.net or antispam.*@west\.verizon\.net
>
> for extended regexp, or:
>
> antispam.\+@west\.verizon\.net
>
> for basic regexp.
>
> Matt
