91–100 of 140 posts
The fact that Microsoft doesn't just whitelist their own domains speaks to their commitment to strict security measures and good engineering culture. Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
They know these are legitimate emails though, so they should treat their presence in the spam folder as essentially a bug report.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
VS Code's selling point is that it's a middle-ground between (relatively) lightweight performance of a text editor, and power of an IDE. People are keeping an eye on performance, and they'll stop using it if it just becomes a bloated, master-of-none IDE. Teams' bread and butter is being "good enough" for enterprise. And they're also locked into a lot of bad early decisions they made since they don't want to break com…
What do people not like about Teams? I just started using it with a contract customer and it seems fine. Does what it says on the proverbial tin.
The fact that Microsoft doesn't just whitelist their own domains speaks to their commitment to strict security measures and good engineering culture. Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
If they don't whitelist and use the rate at which their own emails end as spam to improve their spam filter, that's great engineering culture. If they don't whitelist and the emails just land in spam without anyone taking notice, that reminds me more of the well-known slightly satirical image of Microsoft's org chart [1] 1: https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So "vice signalling", maybe?
I would love for society to return to using "virtue-signaling" and "vice-signaling" in their original meaning, instead of this contemporary linguistic hell where the former is a derogatory synonym for political correctness.
The fact that Microsoft doesn't just whitelist their own domains speaks to their commitment to strict security measures and good engineering culture. Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure the Azure people are aware and annoyed. I appreciate that the security people are holding the line.
Or Microsoft are just terrible at classifying spam
I work for a market research company. Most of our projects gain survey responses via market research panels - or panel marketplaces - so we don't need to email people to ask them to fill in surveys. But we do plenty of projects for clients who send us mailing lists of their customers, who we then contact to fill out surveys.
This is all fine and good but when you're contacting completely different lists of people all the time it's really easy to end up looking like a spammer (this is also why platforms like Sendgrid, and Mailchimp - although great in many ways - aren't a good fit for a market research use case: you're not just contacting the same list, or subsets of that list, over and over; mostly you're contacting different lists for each project, unless you're following up for a single client).
We've had to build our own mailing platform to do this successfully, so that our email is actually delivered into peoples' inboxes, rather than going to their spam folders.
And it's not just the content of the email that matters: it's how you send it, making sure you have DKIM and whathaveyou configured correctly, whether the HTML is valid, etc. Our system automatically checks every aspect of an email before anyone is allowed to hit send (and each send has to be reviewed by one of a list of approved individuals). It also checks the mailing list and cleans out any addresses that are likely to be bad, or who have unsubscribed. Again, if you're not careful about who you send email to, you'll look like a spammer.
A big chunk of our business depends on our ability to get emails into inboxes, so we take great care to make sure that happens. Reputation is everything when it comes to bulk emailing in market research. Because humans under pressure to deliver sometimes cut corners we've baked that great care right into our systems. They're not foolproof, but it's now really quite hard, and would require concerted and deliverate effort, for anyone on our team to send an email without the vast majority of intended recipients receiving it.
This whole thing is a kind of nightmarish arms race but I've been doing this for long enough that I'd put money on it not being Microsoft's spam classification doing it wrong here.
The fact that Microsoft doesn't just whitelist their own domains speaks to their commitment to strict security measures and good engineering culture. Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Please use "allowlist"
Junk has a broad definition in outlook.com. It includes commercial emails too.
Mentioned before in another thread. Google workspace flagged an email from Google domains as spam. And it wasn't even a marketing email from them. It was a reminder that I had a .dev domain about to be renewed. I guess that's what happens when you're just too big. And I don't blame the Gmail team. Google has probably launched and killed a thousand products with a thousand domains so curating that whitelist is probabl…
It could also be anti-competitive behaviour. They want the system to be a complex, opaque, black box because then it's more important for other providers to trust their IP ranges because they're a known-good participant. If you're a small sender that wants decent deliverability your options are Google, MS, etc..