27 ms·
I'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 accep
by cube00 4y ago
I'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.