Hi, although most users have a real name in their email address, its absence alone should not create a high enough score for rejection. Indeed, the defaults seem to be low score NO_REAL_NAME 0.124 0.178 0.336 0.007 I would like to see a test for "low probability" real names with a higher score :) Some spammers beliebe that their messages get read if there is a real name (or maybe rely on some broken mailer showing just the real name and not the address), so they add quite unlikely real names. In real life, I would expect at least 90 % of mail in the .ru or .de domain belonging to individuals with russian or german sounding names, not english ones. Of course, one cannot tell a german "Michael" from an english one
About the dsl-all-num-bers domain: The poster says it is a static ip. Now, static ip dsl seems to be quite more expensive than dynamic, although a lot of users run 24/7 connected. Also, some providers force a disconnect every 24 hours to mildly force clients to pay for the more expensive static ip if they want to run a server. With dyndns services, this is somewhat pointless as well. So what is it that the provider charges extra for? Services: they should be able to unlist your ip from any dialup ranges, and they should also be able to set up reasonable rDNS Wolfgang Hamann >> >> > >> > Somethings odd here. The above message, when it arrived here from the >> > list, did have a real name ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) in the headers, all >> > lines of it except those that refered to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to the >> > intermediate handlers of the message. So it looks to me as if he is >> > doing it right. >> >> >> I don't think an email address is considered a "real name". If you look at >> most everyone who sends to this list, their "from" address is a indeed real >> name like 'John Smith' not an email address like [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Now, I have seen situations where real names got stripped by email relays, >> but usually this is just someone being lazy and not setting up their Outlook >> (or whatever) correctly. That is why you see some frustration with the >> responses. >> >>
