Going back to this: On Apr 1, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Bowie Bailey <bowie_bai...@buc.com> wrote:
> That might be reasonable for most email addresses, but there are quite a few > people who have a usable name or nickname as the user part of their email. > (j...@example.com). It would not make sense to score an email just for > having their name in the subject. Well, this wouldn't be the first or only rule that doesn't work for everyone... plus, I would certainly make it case sensitive, so that "John" wouldn't match "john@", for example. This rule could be disabled by default and turned on by people who want it, or vice versa. I'd also imagine it would generate a lower score from masscheck than the regular TO_IN_SUBJ would, and hence would be of less impact towards FPs (but that extra few-tenths of a point could make the difference to push a lot of these spams over the threshold, particularly if they hit BAYES_999 but not any other rules, as many snowshoe spams often do in the early stages). > And then there are addresses which use normal words in the address which > would also not make sense to score. For example: i...@example.com, > ab...@example.com, supp...@example.com, etc. Indeed, and those likely-FP words could be explicitly excluded via negative match, so that qw(info abuse support mail) etc. wouldn't score. The same could be done for common names, I suppose, although I agree that gets a bit cumbersome. Anyway, it was just a thought... I'd certainly support such a rule, even if it had to be manually enabled or rescored. Cheers. --- Amir
