Bare addresses alternative for __MANY_RECIPS?

[Tom Hendrikx <to...@whyscream.net>]

Hi,

I have been using __MANY_RECIPS in some meta rules for some time now,
and noticed a weird FP today. The rule seems to count the number of '@'s
in the To and CC header. Someone sent a mail to using the (albeit silly)
format, probably by using reply-to-all in a braindead MUA:

To "The foo mailing list" <fo...@lists.domain.tld>
CC: "Foo@lists.domain.tld" <fo...@lists.domain.tld>

This triggers the __MANY_RECIPS rule as the @ occurs (at least?) 3 times.

Is there any alternative to this rule, that only lists the addresses
(i.e. excludes the name part in the To/CC)? Or maybe even removes the
duplicates (that would probably be an eval rule)?

Regards,
	Tom

Re: Bare addresses alternative for __MANY_RECIPS?

[Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>]

On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 14:11 +0200, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> I have been using __MANY_RECIPS in some meta rules for some time now,
> and noticed a weird FP today. The rule seems to count the number of '@'s
> in the To and CC header. Someone sent a mail to using the (albeit silly)
> format, probably by using reply-to-all in a braindead MUA:
> 
> To "The foo mailing list" <fo...@lists.domain.tld>
> CC: "Foo@lists.domain.tld" <fo...@lists.domain.tld>
> 
> This triggers the __MANY_RECIPS rule as the @ occurs (at least?) 3 times.
> 
> Is there any alternative to this rule, that only lists the addresses
> (i.e. excludes the name part in the To/CC)?

Nothing even remotely correct and sufficiently simple to squeeze into a
RE. Counting the @ chars is pretty rough, but a suitable trade-off IMHO.

I'd argue that 3 is too low to count as "many". (Regardless of the
implementation and the FP you encountered.)


> Or maybe even removes the duplicates (that would probably be an eval
> rule)?

Yep, that would require an eval rule. As would any more sophisticate
implementation of the original rule.


-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}