On Wednesday 30 October 2019 at 20:23:37, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:09:11 -0400
>
> Mark London wrote:
> > Is PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL_SHORT new? I see it hitting real emails
> > here, but hitting no spam emails. Thanks.
>
> It's one of several rules based on __PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL, which is
> looking for To headers that look like this:
>
> To: foo <f...@example.com>
>
> A problem with this is that such headers look unprofessional, and so
> are likely to be underrepresented in a ham corpus dominated by
> corporate mail.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is "unprofessional" about this?
Is it the fact that "foo" is just a single word, rather than "forename
surname", or is it just that "foo" on its own matches the username in
"f...@example.com"?
I have plenty of "professional" contacts (mainly in small businesses) where
they use first names only, and also plenty of examples such as "Helpdesk
<helpd...@example.com>" and "Accounts <accou...@example.com>" which are
perfectly legitimate.
Thanks in advance for any explanation,
Antony.
--
"The problem with television is that the people must sit and keep their eyes
glued on a screen; the average American family hasn't time for it."
- New York Times, following a demonstration at the 1939 World's Fair.
Please reply to the list;
please *don't* CC me.
