Dnia 27.01.2024 o godz. 13:21:46 Thomas Walter via mailop pisze:
> 
> To me it just doesn't make a lot of sense to basically have two
> inboxes to check - the regular one and the spamfolder.
> 
> Also having to tell people to check their spamfolders every time
> they are missing an email is annoying too.
> 
> I'd rather know that my email was considered spam than trying to
> figure out why someone did not reply after a few days. At least that
> would give me a chance to use a different contact method or try to
> resolve the issue in the first place.
> 
> Yes, I know, spamfolders are used for training, but perhaps there
> should be other ways?

There are "edge cases" when the mail couldn't be reliably classified as spam
or non-spam. Even with best tuned spam filtering systems false positives
will happen.

If the mail provider isn't *extremely* supportive to their users with regard
to fine-tuning the spam filtering rules, spam folder is a good solution for
these edge cases. Rejecting should be reserved only for "obvious" spam, for
example if your spam filtering system (whatever it is) gives a message a
score above 10, it is rejected, if below 5 - it goes to the inbox, but
between 5 and 10 it goes to the spam folder.

Just having a binary distinction - reject or deliver to inbox - would be a
much bigger obstacle to communication than delivering to spam folder,
because it's still easier to reach the recipient in some different way and
tell them to check the spam folder, than to make the recipient's provider
fine-tune their email filtering to exempt you from rejection.

I had only once encountered an email provider where process of lifting the
block was very easy and almost effortless - it was mail.ru. I wrote a
message to one user there and it was rejected, with a link to a page that
contained a very simple form I needed to fill in to have the block lifted. I
did and in a couple of hours I got an email saying that I was unblocked.

If everyone behaved like that, I would be very much supporting your stance -
either deliver to inbox, or reject. But the fact is that with most
recipients, if your message is rejected, you can't pretty much do anything
about it - at least it isn't quick and easy. So the spam folder is still a
better solution.

Of course, the users should be aware that they *should* check the spam
folder, which means, the provider should inform them about this with a very
clear and prominently visible message. Sadly, most providers don't do it,
therefore the users are convinced that they don't need to check the spam
folder at all, since it's clearly labelled "spam" or "junk", so "by
definition" it cannot contain anything useful to them.

This is a main problem in my opinion. The providers should clearly inform
users, that there MAY be non-spam messages in the spam folder, and if they
don't want to lose mail, they SHOULD check that folder.
-- 
Regards,
   Jaroslaw Rafa
   r...@rafa.eu.org
--
"In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there
was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Reply via email to