This is a discussion on Re: why not doing a test that checks "name"-<email address> pairs - SpamAssassin ; >a) is probably going to be quite resource-intensive; I don=C2=B4t really know, according to http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost...486&framed=3Dy sm-7 say that it shouldn=C2=B4t be >b) requires LDAP, NIS, etc., so that SpamAssassin can have a clue >about your accounts; >c) requires competent fuzzy ...
>a) is probably going to be quite resource-intensive;
I don=C2=B4t really know, according to
sm-7 say that it shouldn=C2=B4t be
>b) requires LDAP, NIS, etc., so that SpamAssassin can have a clue
>about your accounts;
>c) requires competent fuzzy matching so that, when a user sends mail
>to "Chris St. Pierre
", it doesn't flag it
>as spam because my "real name" is Christopher;
>d) is prone to FPs, since its the clients who add that name, and it
>could be literally _anything_ ("chris", "some guy", "", etc.) without
>being spam; and
My idea was that you could have a list that links each recipient to possibl=
names that could be used (basically first name, surname and possibly a shor=
name), not necesary NIS or LDAP. About fuzzy matching I think it shouldn't
be difficult to do. It=C2=B4s something like what Google does when you miss=
something or enter something that is not "usual", it suggests you another
search and, in my opinion, its guess is usually very good.
>e) is fairly site-specific and would require a fair amount of
well, maybe if you have thousands of users in your domain and you want to
enter the names-recipient links (as I explained in the previous paragraph)
for the first time, it will require a lot of work. In my case I have about
100 recipients and from time to time I have to add new ones; so, that
wouldn't be a problem.
>It might be an interesting plugin, but I think that the kind of
>scoring I'd be comfortable doing for a plugin like that -- very low --
>wouldn't be worth the tradeoff in CPU time, network traffic, etc.
I think is could add a low partial score, but the effect could be good
because most of these emails I=C2=B4m talking about are already quite suspi=
they usually match other tests (e.g. BAYES_99, which already adds a pretty
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/why-not-doing-a-test-th=
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.