>>
>> > BAD Idea.
>> >
>> > I just looked at about 3 dozen pieces of e-mail. Only about 4 of them had
>> > my real name. So would you also add extra points for that?
>>
>> Personally I'd say "bad idea" rather than "BAD idea".
>>
>> I in fact have such a rule that scores at around 2 points, and
John D. Hardin wrote:
That looks kinda fragile in the face of multiple TO addresses.
Agreed, though that's not a scenario that I personally see very often.
In any case it was only meant as a simplified example from which the
original poster could build his own rule.
John.
--
-- Over 3000 w
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, John Wilcock wrote:
> header__TO_userTo =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i
> header__GOODREAL_user To =~ /\b(?:first|sur|nick)name\b/i
>
> meta BADREAL_user (__TO_user && !__GOODREAL_user && !TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL
> && !NO_REAL_NAME && !USER_IN_WHITELIST)
> des
Evan Platt wrote:
At 07:10 AM 3/1/2007, Steven W. Orr wrote:
Sometimes messages get through but something I see that we could maybe
do something about is the full name.
If the message is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and joedoe's fullname is
Joe Doe, then I'd like to get SA to see that
To: Heav
BAD Idea.
I just looked at about 3 dozen pieces of e-mail. Only about 4 of them had
my real name. So would you also add extra points for that?
Personally I'd say "bad idea" rather than "BAD idea".
I in fact have such a rule that scores at around 2 points, and only about
10-15% of the time do
At 07:10 AM 3/1/2007, Steven W. Orr wrote:
Sometimes messages get through but something I see that we could
maybe do something about is the full name.
If the message is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and joedoe's fullname
is Joe Doe, then I'd like to get SA to see that
To: Heavenly Mergatroyd <[E
Sometimes messages get through but something I see that we could maybe do
something about is the full name.
If the message is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and joedoe's fullname is Joe
Doe, then I'd like to get SA to see that
To: Heavenly Mergatroyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
should score a couple extr
