Facts? I don't know. The functions are very unclear, because Microsoft
did not release any technical details about it. Only marketing statements.
And don't we all believe them?
Junk E-Mail Filter: Outlook 2003 uses state-of-the-art technology
developed by Microsoft Research to evaluate whether a message should
be treated as a junk e-mail message based on several factors—such
as the time the message was sent and the content and structure of
the message. The filter does not single out any particular sender
or type of e-mail message. Rather, it uses advanced analysis to
determine how likely it is to be thought of by you as a junk e-mail
By default, this filter is set to a low setting designed to catch
the most obvious junk e-mail messages. Messages caught by the filter
are moved to a special Junk E-mail folder, where you can access
them later. If you want, you can make the filter more aggressive
(perhaps mistakenly catching more legitimate messages), or even
set Outlook 2003 to permanently delete junk e-mail messages as they
is more or less cryptic. No existing technologie can be identified.
Some parts identify nonsense technologie ("time the message was
send") or buzzy marketing bubbles ("content and structure
of the message"). There is non statement about how the combination
of filters is done. There is no statement about how to adjust the
needed filter settings. There is no statement how the 'individual'
"time the message was send":
In a global acting environment there is no valid time of sending an
email. Russion, American and Indian bussines partners will send messages
any time... And even their daytime is irrelevant, I know people working
very early in the morning and others very late at night. I have even
heard about night shifts or such functions like 'setting the time
when a message will be send'. So no working way.
And remember: all message items can be forged. Only thing
you could do is to remove messages with 'broken' dates/times (like
in the future, too old or simply defect).
"content and structure of the message":
where else do you expect to get the knowledge about the type of message
come from? Huhuhu...
Other features Microsoft mentions:
Safe Senders List: This is a feature Disruptor
OL does automatically without any interaction, without any hazzle,
quietly in the background with its auto-Whitelist feature. So manual
interaction is a step backward.
The Microsoft idea to treat entire domains as 'white listed' is not
very smart. Keep in mind that junk mail senders simply can invent
new mail addresses and add your company domain. So it will soon be
a usesless feature.
Blocked Senders List: More or less very
useless. Junk senders tend to change their sender address every time.
So honestly, this feature in Disruptor OL is almost useless, too.
It can be used to stop annoying newsletters or auto-advertisments
from services you signed up (like from bookshops, auction yards or
automated status reports). Blocking entire domains? OK, we don't do
business with someone mailing from yahoo.com, don't we?
Safe Recipients Lists: I'm not sure about
this feature. It could kill the BCC-function, because you are not
mentioned as a receiver in a BCC-message (only your post box is, but
that is the box that receives *any* mail you get, so you can't block
it.). And if the junk senders grab your mail address from somewhere
they *have* your valid recipient address.
AutoUpdate: Something that really looks
nice if you read it the first time. But without details it is featureless.
As discussed before, getting new 'blocked senders' is quite useless.
They probably change faster than you do your updates.
Information about junk messages? Most of these concepts don't work
very well because the junk senders individualize junk by adding random
parts or using different order of paragraphs.
On the other hand it raises traffic. And I have no idea about the
individuality of auto updates. If done reguallary and individualized
it might expose your privacy...
And what is 'periodic'? Junk senders have timeframes of two or less
days. More active during week ends.
But again: all the details are too
unclear to say anything substantial.