From: Herb Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Bowie Bailey wrote: > > > ...and yet I have never seen one of these "fake" real names > > > without the quotes, probably because these are always in this > > > format: > > > > > > "Firstname Lastname" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Removing the quotes will however simplify the whole thing though. > > > > I was speaking hypothetically until I examined my inbox at > > home and found that my wife's emails do not have quotes > > around my name. She is using the current version of > > Thunderbird, so this probably happens enough to cause > > problems if you don't allow for it. > > My point was that (presumably) your wife is NOT > spamming you (or me) with forged emails and so > would be included when I say, 'I have never > seen a FAKE [one] without the quotes.' > > We aren't checking for FAILURE to find the quotes > but rather only checking those WHICH HAVE the > quotes and then do NOT ALSO have (a version of) the > "real name". > > If you wish to check for forgeries without the quotes > that may be useful (thus legitimate criticism) but > so far no forgeries without the quotes and conservative > filtering is my usual method.
This last message wasn't meant as a further criticism, just to point out that there are real emails being sent in this format. I wasn't sure of that previously, I just knew that the RFC allows it. Looking back at your patterns, you required quotes in both sub-matches, so your meta would never match if the real name did not have quotes. Thus, it's not a problem for false positives as you said. It would, however, fail to match a spam that is sent without the quotes. You said you have never seen one like that and I don't see any in my current spam folders either, so it may be a moot point. Regardless, there are always multiple ways of doing anything. And there are usually problems with all of them. As I pointed out in the last version of my pattern attempt, mine has the problem of not pairing the quotes and so can get confused by embedded commas. The OP can pick whichever one works best for him. Hmmm.... Maybe I could capture an optional match for a quote and then use that match later to pair the quote (or lack thereof). I may attempt that later today. Bowie
