Talk:Email filtering

Article to-do list

Sections

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 –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 07:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Notes

• Page has been moved to Email filtering, without the hyphen in "e-mail", to represent the most common spelling.
• I've been advised about Mail filter. Will consider merging articles.

–– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 12:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:32, 11 August 2006 (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 #Notes section from Dec 2004, just above). --Quiddity 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• 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#The 2012 merging proposal (server + users)) 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 19#Content filtering - Spam until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)