Re: Automatic Deletion of Members If Message Marked As Spam #poll

Chris Jones

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 05:15 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
Of course this question may be moot, as Mark has somewhat clarified his position on this. In part he says:

"- Having a 'forcing function' that gets people to train spam filters to
not mark email as spam hopefully decreases the future
likelihood of emails being marked as spam"
I can see the rationale behind this. However, I find myself wondering about "training spam filters"; precisely what does it mean?

My ISP is BT (I'm in the UK) although I normally use Outlook as my email client. When we first migrated to I found that quite a few messages from were being diverted by BT (or whoever!) having marked them as spam, so unless I went looking for them they were invisible. My immediate workaround was to switch all spam filtering off - obviously not without risk but at the moment the result is manageable. I had a delve around earlier today and there is a setting in the BT email system for designating "" emails as not being spam. However, I also have a Yahoo mail account only because it was unavoidable as a Yahoo Group member (several of them) & moderator (of one). Try as I might I cannot find a corresponding means of defining safe senders; yes I can mark individual emails as "not spam" but how many times would I have to do that for Yahoo to "learn" that messages were safe? Would it ever actually learn that?

Is Yahoo the exception, with ALL other mail providers allowing specified senders to be marked as being safe? Is it too easy to assume that individual members will be able to know where to look, and be bothered (& have the confidence!) to go and do it? I know that members have to take care of the majority of their own on - line welfare, up to a point anyway. It is perhaps too easy to assume that they do know how to "train" their mail provider, assuming that the provider actually makes proper provision for it; as stated above I am not entirely convinced that Yahoo (for example) does. Expecting members to have to mark numerous messages as "not spam" in the hope that their provider might eventually see the light might just be expecting too much. With such a proliferation of Mail Providers it is almost certainly too simple to expect there to be a "one size fits all" instruction to members.

There is probably no "best" solution to all this. just a "least worst" one.



Join to automatically receive all group messages.