> 1) FPs on highly technical mail due to words not known to the spell > checker.
I hadn't thought of that, but people who are dealing with highly technical e-mails would probably also be able to customize their local.cf file to effectively turn off the rule. > 2) FPs on email sent by folks of the text-message generation. (OMG did u > c he 8 it all!) All my clients are professional agencies, and I don't think this really applies to them. > 3) FPs on email sent by lazy/stupid folks that can't spell. > (Translation: management material) I don't mind these getting blocked. In fact, I'd love it if every time someone sent me a very poorly written e-mail they got a bounce message back telling them to turn on the spell check option in their e-mail program. > 4) relatively quick and easy for spammers to adapt to. True. I hadn't thought of your book text example. > 5) Relatively high CPU usage, given the above caveats in accurate. For me, this is less of a concern...my e-mail is a quad 3.2ghz machine with 4GB of RAM, and it runs at about 2% processor usage most of the time. :) As for whether or not a lot of SPAM has mispelled words in it or not: every single e-mail that came to my inbox this morning that was SPAM but wasn't tagged as SPAM were pure gibberish, and they would have been caught by my proposed filter. :) So, while I agree that this filter wouldn't suit everyone, it would certainly be a nice option to have. Tim Gustafson MEI Technology Consulting, Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] (516) 379-0001 Office (516) 908-4185 Fax http://www.meitech.com/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
