4 ms·
I do not understand, why we put emails in spam folders instead of rejecting them (as some providers do, e.g. mailbox.org, posteo.de). It may seem weird at first
by tyrion 6y ago
I do not understand, why we put emails in spam folders instead of rejecting them (as some providers do, e.g. mailbox.org, posteo.de).
It may seem weird at first, but at least if something important would end up in Spam, the sender is going to get a notice.
- Keenuts 6y agoI'd guess same reason we don't say "the password" or "the username" is incorrect but "one of these is incorrect" ? - Oh, my spam was denied by gmail, what if I change this part?
- dylz 6y agoThen your mailserver (if you aren't Google) will be blacklisted for spewing out hundreds of thousands of "rejection messages" an hour.
- slg 6y agoThe same reason we shadowban people or give vague responses to incorrect passwords guesses. You don't want to give bad faith users information that makes their job easier. Telling spammers whether their emails were received or not would be incredibly valuable in interrating ways around the filters.
- abdullahkhalids 6y agoDoes that really help, when the spammer can make their own email account on the target's email service (eg. Gmail), send the spam email to this email account and see if it gets through the filter?
- slg 6y agoI don't know. Although I would be mildly surprised if there was a single universal spam filter applied to all Gmail accounts. I would also think there are more inputs to the system than just the sender and the body of the email. Gmail being so big allows other variables like the rate that address is sending to all of Gmail as well as how users engage with those emails. Therefore getting a single test email through the filter probably isn't proof that you have defeated the overall filter.