| name | email-importance-content-analysis |
| description | Judge whether an email is important/urgent using content-based analysis rather than sender name or mailbox labels (which can be spoofed). Use when asked to triage emails, decide priority, detect phishing/social-engineering, or recommend next actions (reply/pay/login/download/click) based on what the message asks the user to do. |
Email Importance Content Analysis
Use a subject/title-first triage, then perform technical verification (headers/links/attachments) only when warranted, and only then validate with content analysis. Treat sender display name, badges, labels, and “From” appearance as untrusted.
Workflow (title → technical → content)
1) Title/subject + sender triage (cheap first-pass)
Use only: subject line + sender (display name + email address/domain as shown). Do not click anything.
Important: treat sender as weak signal (can be spoofed). Use it for triage only.
1A) Fast-drop rules (save time)
If the sender looks obviously sloppy/spoofed AND the email is not expected, classify as Likely scam/ads and stop (do not spend time on technical verification).
Examples of fast-drop signals:
- Display name claims a bank/government/major brand but the address is from a free mailbox (gmail/outlook/163/qq) or unrelated domain
- Lookalike domains / typo-squatting:
paypaI (I/l), micros0ft (0/O), extra -secure/-verify, weird punctuation
- Suspicious TLDs or brand stuffed into subdomain:
brand.security-check.example.com
- Very unprofessional local-part patterns (random digits/strings) while claiming official identity
- Pure promo patterns (promo/marketing/news) + obvious sales subject ⇒ treat as ads
1B) Escalate rules (to technical verification)
Escalate for technical verification if subject OR sender implies any of:
- Money/settlement: 扣款/圈存/付款/退款/發票/帳單/對帳單/繳費
- Account/security: 登入/驗證/密碼重設/異常登入/停權/封鎖/安全警告
- Delivery/download: 文件下載/取件號碼/包裹/物流失敗
- Urgency/threat: 最後通知/24小時內/立即/否則將…
- Execution: 附件/請下載/請開啟/啟用巨集
If the subject is clearly marketing/newsletter and no action is implied ⇒ usually stop here (Low).
If it triggers the fast-drop rules, you may label it as:
- Importance: Low
- Risk: Medium–High (spoof attempt)
- Next step: Do not click; optionally mark as spam/block
2) Technical verification (only for emails that passed title triage)
Prefer evaluating raw email headers / “Show original” output (or via gog gmail get). Check:
- Authentication-Results: SPF / DKIM / DMARC results (
pass|fail|neutral) and note which domain they authenticate
- Alignment: whether DKIM d= domain / SPF MAIL FROM / DMARC aligns with the visible From domain
- From vs Reply-To mismatch
- Links and attachments:
- Expand the real target domain (hover/copy link) — don’t trust anchor text
- Note risky attachments (e.g., .zip, .iso, .js, .vbs, .docm, password-protected archives)
If headers are not available, mark Technical verdict = Unknown and increase caution.
3) Extract the actionable claims (facts only) — only if technical verification passes
From the email body, list:
- What happened / what they claim happened
- What they want the recipient to do (and by when)
- What account/system/money is involved
- What evidence they provide (order id, invoice id, ticket id, last-4 digits, timestamps)
4) Classify the required action (drives importance)
Rank higher if it requires any of:
- Account access / authentication: login, password reset, 2FA codes, device approval
- Money movement: payment, wire, subscription renewal, invoice settlement, refunds
- Permissions / security posture: granting access, changing roles, API keys, OAuth consent
- Software execution: download/open an attachment, run a file, enable macros
- Data disclosure: personal/company info, documents, ID numbers
5) Content risk patterns (red flags)
Increase risk if the content shows:
- Urgency / threat: “within 24h”, “account will be closed”, “legal action”, “final notice”
- Secrecy / bypass: “don’t tell others”, “use personal email”, “avoid normal process”
- Mismatch / vagueness: generic greeting, unclear context, missing specifics the real sender would know
- Odd requests: asking for OTP, gift cards, crypto, remote access, or direct bank changes
- Link/attachment pressure: “click to verify”, “download to view”, “enable macros”
6) Choose safe verification (do not trust the email path)
Even if SPF/DKIM/DMARC pass, for sensitive actions recommend out-of-band verification:
- Navigate via known official entry points (typed URL, app, bookmark), not email links
- If it claims an account issue: check account status by logging in from official site/app
- If it’s a vendor/payment issue: verify using the invoice/order id inside the official portal
- If it’s workplace related: verify via internal chat/phone using known contacts
7) Output: priority + next action
Always provide:
- Title triage verdict: Escalate / Ignore
- Technical verdict: Pass / Fail / Unknown
- Importance level: Critical / High / Medium / Low
- Risk level: High (likely phishing) / Medium / Low
- Recommended next step: what to do now, what not to do, and how to verify
Decision Heuristics (quick)
- Technical FAIL (SPF/DKIM/DMARC fail or obvious mismatch) + any call-to-action ⇒ Risk: High (treat as phishing) regardless of “importance”.
- Critical: money/credentials/permissions + urgency OR any request for OTP/macro/remote access.
- High: requires action soon, could cause loss of access/service interruption, but can be verified safely via official channels.
- Medium: informational but relevant; no immediate sensitive action.
- Low: newsletters, marketing, generic updates with no action.
Response Template (use in replies)
- Title triage (why it escalates / why it can be ignored):
- Technical verification (SPF/DKIM/DMARC + alignment + From/Reply-To + link/attachment notes):
- Summary (1–2 lines):
- What it’s asking you to do:
- Why it may matter (impact if ignored):
- Red flags (if any):
- Safe verification path:
- Recommendation (do / don’t):
