Select and add multiple emails to junk mail lists all at once

[The Blue Max]

In Outlook 2007 the user should be able to select a group of emails and add
them to one of the junk mail lists. For example, select 5 junk emails, right
click to get a context menu, and choose to send all of them to the 'Blocked
Senders List'. For some reason, we can only send one at a time to the Junk
Mail lists from the context menu. If we select multiple emails, we no longer
have the 'Junk Mail' option on the right mouse button context menu. This is
extremely unfortunate since many users often need to send large numbers of
junk emails to the blocked list.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...971f27ca9&dg=microsoft.public.outlook.general

 

[Roady [MVP]]

That would only be handy if all the e-mail addresses of the messages you are
adding to the list are sending you Junk over and over again. I highly doubt
that this is the case and I'm quite sure that all those addresses are only
being used once so adding them (one by one or all at once) wouldn't make any
difference.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----
In Outlook 2007 the user should be able to select a group of emails and add
them to one of the junk mail lists. For example, select 5 junk emails,
right
click to get a context menu, and choose to send all of them to the 'Blocked
Senders List'. For some reason, we can only send one at a time to the Junk
Mail lists from the context menu. If we select multiple emails, we no
longer
have the 'Junk Mail' option on the right mouse button context menu. This is
extremely unfortunate since many users often need to send large numbers of
junk emails to the blocked list.

 

[The Blue Max]

Hello Roady,

Thank you for the reply. Unfortunately, we hear this over and over from the
MVP's, yet I am absolutely sure you are all correct. Nevertheless, the
problem is two fold. FIRST, there really should be a way to move over
multiple emails - this is a great enhancement request. I doubt that anyone
would argue against such a feature, especially if the filter block list was
an effective way to filter junk mail. SECOND, the true problem is that the
market is clamoring for an effective way to filter junk mail. It is sad that
Microsoft is incorporating features, which appear to be great selling
features, but as you suggest, are useless! What we really need are filtering
methods and features that actually work!

 

[Roady [MVP]]

1a) If you are sure we are correct why go on and on about this? Adding loads
and loads of addresses to the blocked list is NOT and NEVER will be an
effective method to block spam as junk sender will NEVER use that address
again and will use a NEW address every time. This will only clutter your
list. The blocked list is for when you receive e-mails that are being send
by the same address over and over again and are not being caught by the Junk
E-mail filter. This could even be handy for legit e-mails from certain
people you simply are tired to answer over and over again.

1b) "It is sad that Microsoft is incorporating features, which appear to be
great selling features, but as you suggest, are useless!"
Ehm... says who? Any actual research on this or just some blog posts of
people who like to throw some dirt to get lots of visiors instead of
actually saying something constructive? (Chris Pirillo perhaps?)

1c) "What we really need are filtering methods and features that actually
work!"
Yeah don't we all? But this is not just a Microsoft issue. For me the Junk
E-mail filter has been very effective ever since Outlook 2003 BETA 1. It
never has been (or claimed to be) a 100% solution but can you give me any
other anti-spam solution that is (does)? As I explained in another post to
you; the real issue is with the SMTP protocol itself.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----
Hello Roady,

Thank you for the reply. Unfortunately, we hear this over and over from the
MVP's, yet I am absolutely sure you are all correct. Nevertheless, the
problem is two fold. FIRST, there really should be a way to move over
multiple emails - this is a great enhancement request. I doubt that anyone
would argue against such a feature, especially if the filter block list was
an effective way to filter junk mail. SECOND, the true problem is that the
market is clamoring for an effective way to filter junk mail. It is sad
that
Microsoft is incorporating features, which appear to be great selling
features, but as you suggest, are useless! What we really need are
filtering
methods and features that actually work!

That would only be handy if all the e-mail addresses of the messages you
are
adding to the list are sending you Junk over and over again. I highly
doubt
that this is the case and I'm quite sure that all those addresses are only
being used once so adding them (one by one or all at once) wouldn't make
any
difference.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----
In Outlook 2007 the user should be able to select a group of emails and
add
them to one of the junk mail lists. For example, select 5 junk emails,
right
click to get a context menu, and choose to send all of them to the
'Blocked
Senders List'. For some reason, we can only send one at a time to the
Junk
Mail lists from the context menu. If we select multiple emails, we no
longer
have the 'Junk Mail' option on the right mouse button context menu. This
is
extremely unfortunate since many users often need to send large numbers of
junk emails to the blocked list.

 

[The Blue Max]

1a) If you are sure we are correct why go on and on about this? Adding loads
and loads of addresses to the blocked list is NOT and NEVER will be an
effective method to block spam as junk sender will NEVER use that address
again and will use a NEW address every time. This will only clutter your
list. The blocked list is for when you receive e-mails that are being send
by the same address over and over again and are not being caught by the Junk
E-mail filter. This could even be handy for legit e-mails from certain
people you simply are tired to answer over and over again.

Yeah, yeah - so who is repeating now? No offense, but we were polite enough
to give you credit for your explanation, can't you give someone else credit
for making a few reasonable observations. You can't see the benefit of a
tool to move multiple emails to the list? If not, you're not much of a
visionary - forget what you think about the effectiveness of the tool! You
can't see the benefit of better filtering? Then I guess everyone else out
here posting complaints are simply idiots. Don't short-change someone else's
need of a better tool just because you find it adequate to your limited
needs. Our two observations were clear, simple, and had reasonable merit, so
what is so hard about agreeing that they might be useful to someone without
trying to intellectually dismantle them?

1b) "It is sad that Microsoft is incorporating features, which appear to be
great selling features, but as you suggest, are useless!"
Ehm... says who? Any actual research on this or just some blog posts of
people who like to throw some dirt to get lots of visiors instead of
actually saying something constructive? (Chris Pirillo perhaps?)

Come on, maintain a little sensibility. We are not trying to unfairly
discredit Microsoft, but are intelligent enough to question the adequacy of
any feature that does not work well. "Actual Research," you say, wasn't it
you who so adeptly discredited the usefulness of the 'Block Sender's' list to
begin with? Don't the opinions of dozens of others in the discussion group
on this same subject count for something? Or do you need a formal scientific
study? Furthermore, features DO SELL product, but what good are they for a
company's credibility when you list them as a benefit, but they don't work
effectively (in this case, even by your own admission)? And the more
features that fail to work effectively, the more it should affect your
credibility!

1c) "What we really need are filtering methods and features that actually
work!"
Yeah don't we all? But this is not just a Microsoft issue. For me the Junk
E-mail filter has been very effective ever since Outlook 2003 BETA 1. It
never has been (or claimed to be) a 100% solution but can you give me any
other anti-spam solution that is (does)? As I explained in another post to
you; the real issue is with the SMTP protocol itself.

Sorry you have no hope. Odd, since I think Microsoft, as well as thousands
of other businesses, have often staked their business successes on doing the
near impossible. At least we trust Microsoft enough, and perhaps others, to
suggest they just might be able to come up with some better solutions, yes,
even some extremely good solutions to the problem.

 

[Roady [MVP]]

1a) Yes, I'm repeating myself as you are not bringing any new arguments for
why bulk populating your Blocked Senders list would be handy. The ones
you've given are happily living now in the land of busted myths. Of course I
see the benefit of better filtering but the one to be able to bulk
populating your Blocked Senders list isn't one of them. It would only be
usefull if you are receiving loads of legit e-mails (or junk not being
caught by the filter) from multiple addresses which are also being used over
and over again. What do you think the actual usage of that feature would be?
Don't count the times that people will use this feature to polute their
Blocked Senders list with worthless addresses.

1b) I've never claimed that the Blocked Senders list is useless. It is handy
when you receive loads of crap e-mail from the same address and there is no
other way to unsubscribe from receiving them. Luckily I'm not in that
position or would that be unfortunately because if spam was always send from
the same address it sure would make things a whole lot eassier! ;-) Since
the addresses change continuously keeping a static list of Blocked Sender
(manually updating it would qualify as static as well in this context) isn't
the way to fight this. This is also why Microsoft abandoned Junk E-mail
filtering by using rules (which in a way is the same as having a Blocked
Senders and Blocked Words list) and developed an actual dynamic Junk E-mail
filter system.

1c) Sure, I have hope; I do research myself as well. From a technical point
of view starting of with a new and secure e-mail protocol (clean sheet
approach) would be the best way to go. Sadly because of the widespread use
and dependancy on the SMTP protocol this is not a very likely thing to
happen. Yes, there might be somebody coming up with a nice "capsule" arround
the SMTP protocol to protect it but the fact remains; the SMTP protocol on
its own can't defend itself against abuse.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----

:

1a) If you are sure we are correct why go on and on about this? Adding
loads
and loads of addresses to the blocked list is NOT and NEVER will be an
effective method to block spam as junk sender will NEVER use that address
again and will use a NEW address every time. This will only clutter your
list. The blocked list is for when you receive e-mails that are being send
by the same address over and over again and are not being caught by the
Junk
E-mail filter. This could even be handy for legit e-mails from certain
people you simply are tired to answer over and over again.

Yeah, yeah - so who is repeating now? No offense, but we were polite enough
to give you credit for your explanation, can't you give someone else credit
for making a few reasonable observations. You can't see the benefit of a
tool to move multiple emails to the list? If not, you're not much of a
visionary - forget what you think about the effectiveness of the tool! You
can't see the benefit of better filtering? Then I guess everyone else out
here posting complaints are simply idiots. Don't short-change someone
else's
need of a better tool just because you find it adequate to your limited
needs. Our two observations were clear, simple, and had reasonable merit,
so
what is so hard about agreeing that they might be useful to someone without
trying to intellectually dismantle them?

1b) "It is sad that Microsoft is incorporating features, which appear to
be
great selling features, but as you suggest, are useless!"
Ehm... says who? Any actual research on this or just some blog posts of
people who like to throw some dirt to get lots of visiors instead of
actually saying something constructive? (Chris Pirillo perhaps?)

Come on, maintain a little sensibility. We are not trying to unfairly
discredit Microsoft, but are intelligent enough to question the adequacy of
any feature that does not work well. "Actual Research," you say, wasn't it
you who so adeptly discredited the usefulness of the 'Block Sender's' list
to
begin with? Don't the opinions of dozens of others in the discussion group
on this same subject count for something? Or do you need a formal
scientific
study? Furthermore, features DO SELL product, but what good are they for a
company's credibility when you list them as a benefit, but they don't work
effectively (in this case, even by your own admission)? And the more
features that fail to work effectively, the more it should affect your
credibility!

1c) "What we really need are filtering methods and features that actually
work!"
Yeah don't we all? But this is not just a Microsoft issue. For me the Junk
E-mail filter has been very effective ever since Outlook 2003 BETA 1. It
never has been (or claimed to be) a 100% solution but can you give me any
other anti-spam solution that is (does)? As I explained in another post to
you; the real issue is with the SMTP protocol itself.

Sorry you have no hope. Odd, since I think Microsoft, as well as thousands
of other businesses, have often staked their business successes on doing the
near impossible. At least we trust Microsoft enough, and perhaps others, to
suggest they just might be able to come up with some better solutions, yes,
even some extremely good solutions to the problem.

 

[The Blue Max]

Robert, thank you for the courtesy of a pleasant reply. I apologize for
being a little over-zealous in expressing my frustrations. It sometimes
appears that we get caught up in spitting matches, trying to justify personal
positions, rather than endeavoring to understand or appreciate why some users
are so frustrated with certain issues. A little patience and education seem
to stretch a lot further in resolving the true issues. As you aptly stated,
this is an evolving industry and we hope there are meaningful solutions being
developed. In retrospect it is almost a miracle to have seen the progress
made in either of our short lives.

Thank you again for the exchange!

 

[Roady [MVP]]

You're welcome! Same apology counts for me but hé, that's part of the
game so no offense taken.

It's been a good discussion and I think we have come to the bottom of the
issue in both the threads and everything is clear now. Hopefully it will be
an interesting read for others as well.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----
Robert, thank you for the courtesy of a pleasant reply. I apologize for
being a little over-zealous in expressing my frustrations. It sometimes
appears that we get caught up in spitting matches, trying to justify
personal
positions, rather than endeavoring to understand or appreciate why some
users
are so frustrated with certain issues. A little patience and education seem
to stretch a lot further in resolving the true issues. As you aptly stated,
this is an evolving industry and we hope there are meaningful solutions
being
developed. In retrospect it is almost a miracle to have seen the progress
made in either of our short lives.

Thank you again for the exchange!