I can't see that being the explanation.
Those insights would be best stored elsewhere. Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool<http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=18275> ? -----Original Message----- From: mailop <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Vladimir Gabrielescu Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 1:20 PM To: Michael Rathbun <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Paul Kincaid-Smith <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [mailop] Hotmail/msn/lutlook performing unsolicited updates to users' safe- and blocked-sender lists? It could be the focus inbox effect. If the user ignores your mail long enough then they don’t even see it > On Jun 13, 2018, at 8:48 PM, Michael Rathbun > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:13:35 -0600, Paul Kincaid-Smith > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > 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 > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchill > i.nosignal.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmailop&data=02%7C01%7C > vgabriel%40rutgers.edu%7Cb604c2fda5bb4542ac8008d5d15e4129%7Cb92d2b234d > 35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636645125106140487&sdata=TeU79z84xyNG > tMT1O%2Fdbkdw97SnGvRRQsfxeSggYQV0%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchilli.nosignal.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmailop&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C04e6010070274748528808d5d16c0966%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636645184304943404&sdata=f7noP6rJREIsygGj2VxoaWuBjy8Pn0MVUggQPMXo7O4%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
