spam addrs

[David Relson]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:12:45 -0400
Tom Anderson wrote:

> From: "David Relson" <relson at osagesoftware.com>
> > By the way, it occurs to me that "spam address" is a better name for
> > this feature and the format spec should be "%S" rather than "%I".
> > Anybody care if I change it???
> 
> Will bogofilter only output an address for spam messages, or also for
> unsures and hams?  You don't want to improve the precision of the term
> if the accuracy is off-target.

Perhaps '%S' for spam address isn't the answer.  How about '%M' or '%A'
meaning "message address"?

> > subnet tokens, i.e. converting 123.45.67.89 to ip:123.45.67.79,
> > ip:123.45.67, ip:123.45, and ip:123.  The state machine also deals
> > with
> 
> That would be "interesting" if bogofilter could determine that the ip
> is 123.45.67.79 from a received line with 123.45.67.89 ;)

It's all part of the magic of bogofilter :-)

> > The patch below adds in a check for "from" so that the address saved
> > follows "from".  I think it implements what you describe.  Let me
> > know.
> 
> Perhaps the better test would be if "by", "for", etc., didn't come
> before the IP, as an IP address in the "by" or "for" sections would
> also follow"from" in most cases.

Bogofilter only needs to handle the info added by the local MDA.  It
doesn't need to handle whatever (forgeable) junk is provided by the
original sender.

To date, the various means of identifying the address stop looking once
they've found an address.  In "from address by/for/etc other stuff",
only "address" will be identified and "other" and "stuff" will be
ignored.  Show me an MDA that generates "from by local_address
remote_address" and I'll worry about the problem.  Until that MDA shows
up, writing code to avoid problems that don't occur seems pointless.

David

will get the