3 ms·
Exactly, this is not "randomly losing correspondence". This is simply spam filtering that is done after accepting the e-mail for delivery. Whether that should b
by vedranm 4y ago
Exactly, 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".
- andix 4y agoA lot of mail servers are configured like that. Messages with very high SPAM rating are rejected, but still delivered into the SPAM folder. The server rejects the message, to get rid of spammers. After a few rejected messages, they usually stop delivering SPAM for quite some time (it's unnecessary work to do, and a higher risk to land on blacklists).