Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
I remember several comma-counting recipes, but I just
received a message that tries to be clever:
To: duh(_dot_)nicko(_at_)kriho(_dot_)com,
dbd(_at_)gatekeeper(_dot_)vic(_dot_)com, smeagol(_at_)nokey-net(_dot_)net,
rescyou(_at_)spro(_dot_)net, scouvrette(_at_)bluemarble(_dot_)net,
yoof(_at_)jwgh(_dot_)org
To: notr(_at_)bestweb(_dot_)net, barbara(_at_)bookpro(_dot_)com,
ericboesch(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com,
wretch(_at_)eris(_dot_)io(_dot_)com,
beelzibub1(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net, nickb(_at_)fnord(_dot_)io(_dot_)com
<10 To: headers snipped>
To: tw(_at_)xs4all(_dot_)nl, noemata(_at_)kunst(_dot_)no,
johnny_bravo(_at_)kools-online(_dot_)com(_dot_)invalid,
news(_at_)kools-online(_dot_)com(_dot_)invalid,
geen(_at_)mail(_dot_)invalid
[recipe snipped]
I want to point out that section 3.6 of RFC 2822 (which supersedes
RFC 822) specifies the minimum and maximum number of times that header
fields may occur. To: and Cc: are allowed only once at most.
So I consider any email with multiple To: or Cc: headers to be spam.
When I first thought about implementing this, I checked several years
of my old email and didn't find any legitimate email with multiple
To: or Cc: headers. It's worked ok for me and it simplifies comma
counting a lot.
Lloyd Lee-Lim
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail