On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:13:35 -0600, Paul Kincaid-Smith <p...@emailgrades.com>
wrote:
>if Microsoft's filters were aggressively moving heaps of *wanted* email out of
>the inbox, I'd expect Outlook's read rates to be lower, but my metrics show
>that read rates at Outlook are often in line with read rates at Gmail and
>Yahoo!
...
>(I'm probably measuring read rates differently than you. I use IMAP's
>"message read" flag, not an open tracking pixel or click-tracking link.)
I confess that I am not at all sure what you are doing, as we would normally
not have IMAP access to a recipient's mailbox.
Based on the usual crude tracking pixel and click-tracking links, we often see
open rates at hotmail/msn/etc at under half those seen elsewhere.
Thinking about performance objectives (having been a spam analyst for the
Office 365 platform for a couple of years, ending just when the consolidation
with the freemail service began), reflecting upon the fact that non-spam email
can be several orders of magnitude more expensive to process and place in the
inbox than spam, my thought is that
1. It can be extremely economical to consult the recipient's local rules
before even beginning to filter an incoming message; if it's subject to the
local safe-sender list, mark it as safe and terminate all filtering. At least
a 10,000:1 resource saving. If it would be nabbed by the recipient's
blocked-sender list, mark it as spam and likewise send it on its way.
2. Given the great desirability of completely eliminating the filter process,
devise as many ways as possible to populate each recipient's safe and banned
lists, regardless whether they would like you to do that.
mdr
--
"There will be more spam."
-- Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
