3 ms·
I really don’t care anymore if my email reaches Outlook or Hotmail addresses. It’s impossible to make sure. And to some extent it’s also the users problem. Wit
by andix 4y ago
I really don’t care anymore if my email reaches Outlook or Hotmail addresses. It’s impossible to make sure. And to some extent it’s also the users problem.
With Office 365 I have far less issues. So Microsoft can do it, if they want to.
- vedranm 4y agoAre you sure that the infrastructure behind Outlook and Office 365's Outlook is sufficiently different? I was under the impression that it's similar if not the same. Compare Outlook: $ dig mx outlook.com ;; ANSWER SECTION: outlook.com. 300 IN MX 5 outlook-com.olc.protection.outlook.com. with my university that is a customer of Outlook on Office 365: $ dig mx uniri.hr ;; ANSWER SECTION: uniri.hr. 86251 IN MX 0 uniri-hr.mail.protection.outlook.com.
- andix 4y agoEven if the infrastructure is very similar, it can be set up with completely different configurations. The free version has probably a lot of features turned off.
- zinekeller 4y agoYou're not wrong, but Microsoft's Exchange 365 does have a lot of knobs to control (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/security/office-365-security/exchange-online-protection-overview https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/security/offi...) and the defaults are more relaxed, probably as concession to those migrating from on-premise solutions. I'm guessing that they turn the knobs into the most aggressive position for their personal services.
- cube00 4y agoEven Microsoft understands what it means for their business if a paying customer with access to legal representation such as a lawyer or a medical professional randomly started losing correspondence. If it was proven in court that they were silently discarding correspondence of paying customers because they were over confident in their spam filtering, everyone would jump ship in a heartbeat. Mail is a very resilient protocol, this isn't UDP, this is the result of a deliberate decision being taken.
- vedranm 4y agoExactly, this is not "randomly losing correspondence". This is simply spam filtering that is done after accepting the e-mail for delivery. Whether that should be an acceptable behavior or not is another discussion.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cube00 4y agoI'd be interested in how anyone could defend that silently discarding email after "after accepting the e-mail for delivery" based on a defective filter is acceptable behaviour.
- vedranm 4y agoI believe that the argument goes that processing e-mail in spam filters can take some time, so they accept it and queue it for analysis.
- ectopod 4y agoSure, and if it fails move it to the spam folder. In the article Microsoft are discarding emails because the sender hasn't got much of a reputation yet. That's a very weak reason. If storing vaguely suspected spam is intolerably expensive then maybe just keep a list of discarded messages (sender, title and date). At least users can see what's happening.
- layer8 4y agoThey could still at the very least send a notification email back when the deferred analysis rejects the message. Email is multi-hop anyway in the general case.
- josephcsible 4y agoAfter accepting an email for delivery, the only choices the mail server should have are "inbox" or "spam folder", not "deleted forever in a black hole".