suggest: anyword.*20.username@spamgourmet.com (and etc...)

[funchords]

I'd like to suggest that the following be made to work:

anyword.*20.username @ spamgourmet.com
anyword.20*.username @ spamgourmet.com
anyword.domain20.username @ spamgourmet.com
anyword.20domain.username @ spamgourmet.com

This would allow me to automatically permit a number of messages beyond the exclusive sender, just in case the first responder's domain doesn't match subsequent responders.

Thanks again for the continued great service!

[josh]

What about changing the code so that it establishes the "default number" of messages for each * or + exclusive sender message that comes in -- currently, it sets the number to zero. This would have the effect of adding non-exclusive messages to each new * or + address, but would be a small code change and would make no change to the current semantics.

[SysKoll]

This would mean that an exclusive sender can also receive messages from other senders, wouldn't it?

[josh]

yeah -- it would be equivalent to going into the site and establishing the exclusive sender on a regular address after it has been created (I suppose it would result in at least one more message being allowed through, since at least the first one would have gone by in the above scenario). It would also remove any last vestige of the exclusive sender actually being exclusive, too.

[funchords]

The need driving this request can be seen by this example:

1. Go to www . (yourutilitycompany) . com and register a SG e-mail address as utilitycompany.*.username(at)spamgourmet.com

2. You get a confirmation email from utilitycompany.com that you changed the address

3. A few weeks later, the email from utilitycompany.billingvendor.com is silently eaten

Now I really don't want to propose a change to the way people expect SG to work, such as adding the default number (3) of forwarded non-matching messages to the above format (utilitycompany.*.username(at)spamgourmet.com). I think that would be more confusing and more than I'd like to ask users to bear.

But if there was (gulp) another option, that would be okay, or if I could use a different format (utilitycompany.5*.username(at)spamgourmet.com) so that the current usage model is not disturbed ... AND if it would benefit more than just myself ... then that is my proposal.

I definitely can live with the status quo. This is a "nice to have" for me.

[IChrisI]

Eh, I can just make a high-email-count address and add the exclusive sender later. In my experience, it doesn't come up much.

It would be handy to be able to do this automatically, but why keep adding features just for the sake of adding features? This isn't something that anyone needs.