> It's baffling that google are letting these ones slip.
Why would it be baffling? Google’s spam filters have always been extremely low quality, even mistaking email generated by Google itself as spam. They simply don’t have the pride of craftsmanship to improve it.
You live in a different universe than I do. Fascinating.
In my world, spam was a true problem that was killing email. Truly killing it. You would have to create a new address every 6 months to stay ahead of the spam and have a functioning inbox. Very different world.
Gmail fixed that. And for me, there have been issues from time to time and in fact i am getting this very spam myself, but gmail permanently stopped the hordes for me in 2004.
Now, don’t get me started on their insane categorization choices.
Hardly. They didn't invent the tech. And they didn't perfect it. They haven't even tried. The evidence is in my Spam folder. I mean they mark messages they themselves originate as dangerous spam. "Dangerous" being their word, not mine. Screenshot from within the last hour:
Just curious if you would post a little more of the screenshot? I don't think there's enough in the image for me to tell if it's from a spam address or not.
Spam wasn't killing email for me, but Gmail was a noticeable step up for sure. I do wonder how much was innovation on their part and how much of it was simply executing the same filtering techniques really well.
Now, my impression is that all of the well-regarded email providers do a good job of handling spam—it's no longer a differentiator. (Although it might start to be again if Google has genuinely let their guard down.) Fastmail does a good job in my experience.
Why would it be baffling? Google’s spam filters have always been extremely low quality, even mistaking email generated by Google itself as spam. They simply don’t have the pride of craftsmanship to improve it.