Join the AMA (Ask Me Anything) with the Firefox leadership team to celebrate Firefox 20th anniversary and discuss Firefox’s future on Mozilla Connect. Mark your calendar on Thursday, November 14, 18:00 - 20:00 UTC!

Avatar for Username

Przeszukaj pomoc

Unikaj oszustw związanych z pomocą.Nigdy nie będziemy prosić Cię o dzwonienie na numer telefonu, wysyłanie SMS-ów ani o udostępnianie danych osobowych. Zgłoś podejrzaną aktywność, korzystając z opcji „Zgłoś nadużycie”.

Więcej informacji

Wątek został zarchiwizowany. Jeśli potrzebujesz pomocy, zadaj nowe pytanie.

junk versus spam

  • 21 odpowiedzi
  • 1 osoba ma ten problem
  • 1 wyświetlenie
  • Ostatnia odpowiedź od user700204

user700204
user700204
more options

I should have figured this out a long time ago, but I'm a little unclear about the difference between junk and spam. Do I understand correctly that the adaptive junk mail controls in Thunderbird are based on what is in the Junk folder, and NOT what is in the Spam folder? That is, Thunderbird learns to recognize junk by what is in the Junk folder?

If that's the case, what exactly is the Spam folder for, and why do things end up there? Why wouldn't I want spam to be considered as Junk, with regard to the adaptive junk mail controls?

I should have figured this out a long time ago, but I'm a little unclear about the difference between junk and spam. Do I understand correctly that the adaptive junk mail controls in Thunderbird are based on what is in the Junk folder, and NOT what is in the Spam folder? That is, Thunderbird learns to recognize junk by what is in the Junk folder? If that's the case, what exactly is the Spam folder for, and why do things end up there? Why wouldn't I want spam to be considered as Junk, with regard to the adaptive junk mail controls?

Zmodyfikowany przez user700204 w dniu

Wybrane rozwiązanie

By default a filter runs prior the the junk filtering. So if a message is moved to the Junk folder by a filter, it bypasses automatic junk filtering, and you'd need to run junk mail controls manually on that message.

Once again, training the adaptive junk filter is a manual process and something entirely different than classifying a message as junk.

Przeczytaj tę odpowiedź w całym kontekście 👍 1

Wszystkie odpowiedzi (1)

user700204
user700204 Zadający pytanie
more options

If I understand correctly, if an e-mail gets flagged by a local filter and thrown in the Junk folder, it is NOT necessarily considered to be "junk" by the adaptive filter. If you want that to happen, you have to tell that filter to specifically mark it as junk, and then you can throw it in the Junk folder. But you don't have to. That is, the Junk folder and formally marked junk don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

In my wastepaper basket, what I throw there is intended to be thrown out. But I can always come along and rescue something from it. That's exactly like a Trash folder. But I find it odd that the adaptive junk filter doesn't simply look at what is in the Junk folder, and make its adaptive decisions based on that. That is, putting something in the Junk folder doesn't make it junk. If I rescue something from the Junk folder -- no, that's NOT junk!, the adaptive filter should recompute without it.

Now, I accept that it is what it is. But what it is doesn't make a lot of sense.

Zmodyfikowany przez user700204 w dniu

  1. 1
  2. 2