4 ms·
Not judging on the mails itself, but actually rejecting is the right way. Spam folders tend to get ignored, if one doesn't know he misses an email, he won't loo
by d12bb 4y ago
Not judging on the mails itself, but actually rejecting is the right way. Spam folders tend to get ignored, if one doesn't know he misses an email, he won't look there. When a mail gets rejected, the sender is noticed, so he can take measures to ensure the recipient gets the info.
- kevincox 4y agoIn practice roughly 0% of senders will react, except for maybe add you to a blacklist of bouncing addresses. If it is in my spam folder at least I can find it if I know I should have it. I've wondered if it would be useful to reject + store in spam. This way I have a copy and the sender can know that I likely won't see it.
- throwaway81523 4y agoI always thought rejecting spam was bad because it gives information to the spammer. So I have always routed it to a crap folder. Good mail almost never goes there. Unfortunately I made some mistakes with wildcard addresses long ago that I'm still somewhat saddled with. In practice I'm using Fastmail for everything, but in theory self-hosting an IMAP server should be pretty easy. The main usefulness of hosted email services is deliverability for outgoing SMTP, with inbound spam filtering in 2nd place. So if you can separate those functions, you can do all your mail storage on your own IMAP server without suffering from much headache. I haven't tried to actually do this though.