Talk:Email filtering

=Article to-do list=

Uses

 * Autoresponders, out of office, vacation
 * Mailing lists
 * Meta, categories, flags
 * Spam, junk mail, trash can
 * Viruses, attachments

Technology overview

 * Algorithms
 * Intuitiveness

Server-side technology

 * Exchange server
 * Perl
 * Webmail

Client-side technology

 * AVG
 * Microsoft Outlook (and Express)
 * Norton
 * Thunderbird

Client/Server Interaction

 * SpamCoach, etc.
 * spamc/spamd —Preceding unsigned comment added by KitchM (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Service providers

 * GMail
 * Hotmail
 * Yahoo!


 * Started by &#8211;&#8211; Constafrequent (talk page) 07:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Requested move
Email filtering → E-mail filtering – While it may not be the most common usage, e-mail with a hyphen is used on all other Wikipedia articles with the word in the title, like e-mail, chain e-mail, disposable e-mail address, e-mail attachment, e-mail authentication, e-mail bomb, e-mail client, e-mail hosting service, e-mail marketing, e-mail privacy, e-mail spoofing, e-mail tracking, shotgun e-mail and WYSIWYG e-mail. Note: I moved email tracking to e-mail tracking today based upon precedent. It was the only article I could find that did not use "e-mail". A move request was unnecessary since e-mail tracking was not an article or redirect. -- Kjkolb 11:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support as hyphen is preferred in formal writing and to standardize w/ existing. --Dhartung | Talk 03:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Dhartung. (I assume this survey is more of a formality due to the section from Dec 2004, just above). --Quiddity 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol_support_vote.svg|20px]] Support. Constafrequent is/was insane. The hyphenated version is by far more common. (Yes, I know this is uncivil and POV, but it's still valid.) Morgan Wick 02:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It would have been nice if Constafrequent had doen this as a requested move, to open up for discussion and concensus, but we can always move it back :) -- Ratarsed 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Companion pages
Articles Anti-spam techniques (users), Anti-spam techniques and Email Authentication provide the details of mail filtering. An idea for further improvement and redesign (see Talk:Anti-spam techniques) envisages four parts:


 * 1) an overarching one with lots of theory and explanation of mail headers and authentication and so on without being biased towards what might happen at the ISP level,
 * 2) a part from the users' perspective (possibly named something like "spam recognition and trapping") dealing specifically what mail clients and users see,
 * 3) another on spam filtering and blacklisting at the receiving mail server/ISP end, and
 * 4) another on protocols/laws/history of what mail servers may allow to pass/relay (and international laws/conventions as to what steps they might take at a system level to vet what may pass)

This page seems to me the best candidate for the first entry, Anti-spam techniques (users) for the second, while the two other articles, together, give a fairly good account of the third argument.

ale (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"Content filtering - Spam" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Content filtering - Spam and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 05:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)