[req] Re-enable + and *

[lwc]

+ and * are awesome features, but why are they just a one time thing?

Why can't I re-capture an address/domain with a used +/* address?

Why, you ask? For example, I've registered into a site, which never sent me any e-mail. But one day a user decided to use that site's form to send me a one time message and so became that address' first sender and therefore the exclusive sender. It would be great if I could just delete his address and again make it look for an exclusive sender.
Yea, I know I can just fill the counter, but you know it's not the same...

Actually, why not just have an on/off button that automatically (like now) turns to off after a capture, but can be turned on again? If you go that way, not only can it be used for an address that had an exclusive address in the past (but has none currently), but for an address that already have one, but we want to add more to it!

Well, the latter idea (adding more exclusive senders) is just the icing on the cake. The original idea would be great on its own.

Best of all, this doesn't require adding a new feature, but just improving an old one (read: stop having it work only once...).

So what do you think?

[lwc]

Come on, this would really come in handy...I'd like to hear what you all think.

[SysKoll]

If you want a "recapture", why don't you just put a + or * in a new disposable?

[lwc]

Because:
1) I already have a convenient "specific_site.*.myusername@..." address and besides - it would be much easier to log on Spamgourmet and re-enable "capture" mode than log on the other site, provide a new address, wait for the confirmation code, click on the confirmation code, log on there to make sure it worked, etc...

2) If one of my exclusive senders tells me they're about to change their address, I would be able to keep their old address and just tell them to keep sending me messages as usual.

3) "capture" mode is already there. All you need to do is provide a way to re-enable it.

[Guest]

Somebody please explain the two special characters . . .

[lwc]

The FAQ (in the site's front page) explains it quite well.

[lwc]

Mr. SysKoll? Mr. Josh? Hello?
(I wonder how many people would recognize this line...)

[josh]

It's not a small change, unfortunately -- we have different logic blocks for new addresses and existing addresses. The + and * resolution is in the new address block, which never gets invoked for an existing address. We are very slowly refactoring the code to be more modular, and so at some point it may turn into a small change.

[Guest]

Somebody please explain the two special characters . . .

The FAQ (in the site's front page) explains it quite well.

Anonymous replies:

Thanks, I recognized it the moment I saw it. Sorry for the stupid question.

The re-capture does seem somewhat handy, but wouldn't you have enough time to do it manually if your message limit was 20? If you expected to be really delayed in getting back to spamgourmet to set the exclusive sender manually, why not just suffer the early spam by putting the address as its own exclusive [mentioned in the same FAQ], and then, when you do get back online, you find the correct exclusive among the spam, set it manually, and dump the rest?

I suppose, if you were going to be delayed for months, you might max out your inbox; otherwise, I think this method would be good enough, and would save Josh and SysKoll some more coding.

[lwc]

First of all, for unlimited messages, you don't need to write the address itself - just use the letter "." as the exclusive address.

Secondly, your method may cause "less coding", but that would be balanced by "more spam bandwidth".

Anyway, your solution is actually the present solution. It's not like there's another way. If I want to "save" my address from the exclusive address, what else could I do but filling its counter? That's why I requested the re-capture solution.