On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:45:56 +0100 Antony Stone wrote: > 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?
Call it non-corporate if you prefer. > I have plenty of "professional" contacts (mainly in small businesses) > where they use first names only, People like that are unlikely to have their mail handled by an organization that contributes to mass checks. > and also plenty of examples such as > "Helpdesk <helpd...@example.com>" and "Accounts > <accou...@example.com>" The scored rule requires a short body length, which is most likely to occur on a person to person email (and one without a lengthy disclaimer). A helpdesk query could be short, but there are few large contributors to mass checks, so it's hit and miss whether there's anything like that. The fact that 51k hits on __PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL translate into only 59 hits on PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL_SHORT suggests not. > which are perfectly legitimate. It's not about legitimacy.
