On 28 Feb 2002 at 16:44, Greg Ward 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? > > 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?
One caveat. E-mail of the form [ "Your Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] is legal. E-mail of the form [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Your Name) ] is also legal. Not knowing much about regexp, I'm not sure if your proposed expression handles the second case. ---- Nels Lindquist <*> Information Systems Manager Morningstar Air Express Inc. _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
