On 2/28/02 1:44 PM, "Greg Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [I suggest a new rule] >> Here's a quick and dirty attempt: >> >> header TO_REALNAME_EQ_LOCALPART To =~ /\"?(\w+)\"?\s+<\1\@[^<>]+>/i >> describe TO_REALNAME_EQ_LOCALPART Real name in "To:" equals local part >> score TO_REALNAME_EQ_LOCALPART 2.5 > > [Craig responds] >> Sounds like a good rule -- even people like me who use their name as email >> address probably won't have many people using "Craig" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; if they're going to go to the trouble of setting >> the real name, they'll now what my last name is. > > OK, what next? Is that regex good enough? I doubt it -- I cobbled it > together off-the-top-of-my-head, and consulted only the copy of RFC 822 > which I carry around in my brain (not entirely infallible). Do you want > me to take a crack at honing the rule, so eg. something more appropriate > than \w+ is used, or so it doesn't match when there are mismatched > quotes? Or do you want to take over from here? Greg, I think I'm going to be busy for a few days just with scoring refinements. If you could solidify the regex I'd appreciate it. > I'm not really clear on how strict SA's regexes should be -- ie. is the > goal to follow the grammar in the RFC, or to just do a good enough job > that most spam is caught? I think as a general guide, the rules should be RFC-compliant, unless there's a special reason not to be. Also, 2822 should be your guide, not 822. C _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
