4 ms·
Bro don’t take it personally
by JojoFatsani 2y ago
Bro don’t take it personally
- CamperBob2 2y agoThe idea that a spam filter doesn't immediately check to see if the sender is in the recipient's address book when judging ham versus spam has always seemed just nuts to me. Hello? If I've emailed someone before, don't ever mark email from them as spam! Even the SpamBayes plugin for Outlook wasn't smart enough to do that, IIRC. And it definitely had access to the address book.
- jeffbee 2y agoSender-in-addressbook isn't a saving throw for malware.
- CamperBob2 2y agoSo? It is for false spam positives, which is what I was referring to. GMail cheerfully marks some of my email to my GF as spam, after 10+ years. Utterly inexplicable. (Edit: not the OP, just sympathetic to his plight)
- dghlsakjg 2y agoDid they mark it as spam or as suspicious? OP said it was marked as suspicious. Spam and suspicious are not the same thing. It is entirely understandable that they might have marked something as suspicious. Compromised email accounts from known senders are a super popular way to scam people.
- tetromino_ 2y agoCounterexample: I used to have a family friend who liked to send out fringe/conspiracy/general insanity political emails. Occasionally multiple ones per day. Sure they were in my address book, but 75% of what they sent me needed to go straight to the spam folder.
- CamperBob2 2y agoEh, that's the edgiest of edge cases, not something that should drive default functionality. Also easily addressed by manually marking the email as spam. The filter could treat that as a cue that the sender should no longer benefit from the address-book check. Better yet, store the flag as a visible field in the address book, so that you can turn it on and off yourself when you edit their contact information.