David Powers wrote:
> 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.
It is always far better to be as specific as possible with your initial
setup, so that you don't waste time later on trying to track down a
problem due to indiscriminate use of restrictions, blocking or
whitelisting. Prevention is better than cure :)
