This is a discussion on Re: why not doing a test that checks "name"-<email address> - SpamAssassin ; At 23:58 17-08-2007, aag_uk wrote: > >a) is probably going to be quite resource-intensive; > >I don=C2=B4t really know, according to Compared to all the checks performed on a message, it isn't. >My idea was that you could have a ...
At 23:58 17-08-2007, aag_uk wrote:
> >a) is probably going to be quite resource-intensive;
>I don=C2=B4t really know, according to
Compared to all the checks performed on a message, it isn't.
>My idea was that you could have a list that links each recipient to=
>names that could be used (basically first name, surname and possibly a=
>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=
>something or enter something that is not "usual", it suggests you another
>search and, in my opinion, its guess is usually very good.
That's not how "names" work in practice. It may=20
take more than a lookup in your system database.
It's not difficult but it requires some work to=20
understand the naming conventions. That may not=20
be possible in a heterogeneous environment. The=20
fuzzy matching is not that easy. Once you get=20
into that, you turn the process into a resource intensive one.
>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's only a name/recipient link if we make an=20
assumption about the "display name". Once this=20
becomes a general rule, it will be circumvented.
I already have one case where this rule would=20
have the adverse of the intended effect.