Dave Barnett <as10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'll add this to my file. As Jeremy Nicoll, in message > <gemini.js8j1l00300ho00ds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, points out, > there are risks with this test, ...yes > especially if you have correspondence from ex-colonial countries located > West of time zone +0500. What? How can that be related to the format of an email address? > Using this on the To: header shouldn't be a problem, as I don't use the > format in any of my names. But it's perfectly legitimate that you receive an email that's eg: To: someone-else BCC: you in which case there will be nothing in the To: line (and nothing necessarily in any other header) that contains your real name. Many mail lists work that way, which may be ok if they're all actively looked for by ACCEPT rules. Also if I sent a mail eg to another AntiSpam user, but thought it might interest you, and didn't want them to know I'd copied it to you, the TO: value might have their name (in any format) and only the SMTP enevelope info would actually route the mail to you. > The combination should be as foolproof as anything is when dealing with > spam. I'll start, as usual, with a Header trial. There's no doubt it will delete things, but that's not a reliable test of whether it deletes the right things. It may delete lots of garbage, but then also delete genuine mail to you. How would you know? -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own