aaron1234akkq*@*.* and the like has ALWAYS been spam.

A regular expression of *[a-z]*[0-9]*[a-z]*@*.* should flag any address as spam.

Try "[a-z]+\d+[a-z]+@". Remember that DOS wildcard characters and Regular Expressions are quite different! As you have it, the *" at the beginning will cause a syntax error, as it is a quantifier, and must follow something. The remaining expression will match *anything* with an "@" sign in it, which probably isn't what you want. Don't sweat it though, it's a very common mistake, and one that I frequently used to make!

The filter looks a bit too general right now - for example, my friend "stamps2u" would get caught. Should there be a minimum number of letters or numbers in each of the sequences?

Gary, your suggestion would not catch any address starting with a digit. And I've seen a few. I suggest this: "[a-z]*\d+[a-z]+@". Note the asterisk replacing the first plus sign. Be well!

Okay - the ONW asked for "letters, digits, then letters", so I was being very specific. Actually, I think there are probably fewer legitimate addresses which start with a number than with a letter, so that might be a good filter to add to the Sample Filter set. I'll try it out for a while and see what kind of results I get.

I implemented a Regular Expression filter some time ago that automatically bounces anything starting with a numeral, and I haven't seen a single "good" message yet which satisfies this criteria.