In my opinion doing antispam in the outgoing is harder. - First because definition of spam depends on what the *recipient* wants and you have much less feedback from those recipients when you are on the sending side. - Second because you get paid from the one sending (or from advertisers showing them ads, or from monitoring their behaviour), not from the one receiving and it is harder to explain/prove that you are blocking that mail for good when you don't have at least a complaint from a recipient, yet.
That message is probably a message that Microsoft himself will not reject but probably put in the Junk if it was on the receiving side, so to let the recipient take the last word where an algorithm could be simply wrong. Stefano On 29 April 2017 at 09:01, Mark Milhollan <m...@pixelgate.net> wrote: > We periodically receive SPAM from outbound.protection.outlook.com hosts. > No worry, they can slip through anyone's filters. But some have an > X-Forefront-Antispam-Report header with SFV:SPM which has been said is > their indicator of a message they consider to be SPAM. How MS handles > them is up to them, of course, but delivering them seems inappropriate. > Or is SFV insufficient indication (e.g., weak indicator rather than > final judgment)? An additional tag seems to indicate SPAM as well > though nothing has been said publicly about it, it merely has "spm" in > the pair (MLV:spm). > > > /mark > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
