Shire Valley Design said:
I also find this most annoying. What is the point of blocking email
addresses if I must manually sort through the junk folder to delete
them?
All blocking an address does it tell Outlook to consider it junk. That is,
whatever you have configured as the junk handling will apply. If your junk
filter is set to delete incoming junk and not put it in the junk mail
folder, then messages whose senders are blocked will be deleted.
A blocked email should not be allowed to be downloaded but
should be returned to the sender as undeliverable with no
explanation, leading them to think my address does not exsist.
Outlook can't tell the message contains a blocked sender until it has been
downloaded. Bouncing a message is a server function, not a client function.
Moreover, bouncing a message from a spammer either does nothing, because the
sender address is non-existent, or, in the case of a hijacked address,
merely sends a message to an innocent victim. Bouncing junk mail is
pointless. Since spammers rarely use the same address twice, using the
Blocked Senders list is almost pointless.
Putting 'blocked' emails into a special folder isn't blocking the
email; instead it's treating them as special and creating double work
for me. Overall I am happy with Microsoft products and the many
advances, however blocking emails from entering the computer seems
like such a basic stone age concept. It baffles me that Microsoft
can't do better than this.
Consider how you would complain if Outlook incorrectly categorized a good
message as junk and either never downloaded it or deleted it if it did.
There are always situations of false positives. If Outlook didn't save your
junk mail for you to look over, you wouldn't like it either. I di agree,
though, that it would be nice if Outlook's junk filter were user-trainable.