The mail person did ring this afternoon and vouchsafed to me an e-mail address to which I could write, and attach screenshots, in order to explain the problem.
I have just done this, and will post back when I hear something.
I found it a bit tricky to articulate the whole nine yards succinctly, but I think I've explained the issue(s) satisfactorily. In particular I#ve emphasised that although one of the screenshots shows an Outlook screen, I'm not seeking support for Outlook or indeed any other client.
If anyone wishes to receive a copy of what I've sent I'd be happy to send via PM, though at least partially anonymised. (The recipient is a person rather than a functional account and it wouldn't be reasonable to broadcast this).
As expected, changing the option had no effect, still prepending mails with [Bulk].
I can't say that I'm surprised but that's nevertheless interesting news.
Nothing from the e-mail person yet. When I wrote yesterday I asked for and received a delivery receipt: I just hope however that my message hasn't gone into his spam folder (though joking aside it should be all right because his was a bt.com e-mail address).
The @bt.com corporate email address uses hosted Microsoft exchange servers, so run completly differently to Consumer's @btinternet.com email service so it should be okay.
I'm currently having emails from some of my alias/accounts sent via two of my domains (using two completly different hosts and service providers) marked as spam for unknow reasons. Both with a valid SPF and DMARC record along with them being correctly signed via the DKIM mechanism. They and their SMTP email servers don't feature on any blacklist.
However it look's like Synchronoss's (the company running the service on behalf of BT Consumer) systems like their RazorGate servers are marking them as spam for some odd reason. They then add the following headers into the recieved email:
One of the emails I sent to a @btintenet.com address also had it's subject prepended with "[SPAM]".
I couldn't see a reference to RazorGate in any of the e-mails received by me and labelled as Bulk. Does this apply to Yahoo or only to BT Mail?
You appear to know far more about the protocols and mechanisms used for e-mail than me. I may look into this topic further at some point, since it seems likely that to the trained eye the strings appearing after "refid= . . ." will give a clue as to what's going on. On the other hand I consider myself a paying customer of a BT service that includes e-mail, and one shouldn't have to pay a dog while barking oneself.
Pending any information from the mail team, I suspect that since everyone's account details have apparently been hacked we're all considered to be spammers, and so pehaps for legal reasons the bar has been lowered in respect of classifying e-mails as such.
Earlier today I was called by a member of the Mail Team that is led by the person to whom I sent an e-mail last Monday.
When I asked him to explain his role, he said that he is a member of BT's mail team, rather than a member of a Yahoo mail team. He did however refer to having spoken to the back end team about the issue(s) that I have raised, which implies that he is a member of the front end team, and possibly not a technical expert.
The conversation was not entirely satisfactory, with, at one point, the argument again being put to me that the issue was one of e-mail client functionality and that BT does not support e-mail clients. I countered with the argument that POP must be supported, and that the front end interface used to configure it must influence the back end servers. Nevertheless I was told something that, while it stretches credulity, may be of interest to others. At this point it may be advisable to sit down before reading further . . . but apparently:
the problem of [Bulk] being prepended can be solved by configuring POP via the BT Yahoo server interface - presumably to download Spam but without markings - and then refraining from using one' client (i.e. downloading e-mail using POP) for a period of one week.
Yes, really. I was, and indeed remain flabbergasted at this, but apparently this action has solved the problem of [Bulk] in the Subject for a number of customers who have complained about it.
I did of course explain to the person who rang me that the underlying problem was that Yahoo was mis-classifying e-mail as [Bulk] and that I would be happy to have e-mail that really is bulk marked as such. I added that it is the mis-classification coupled with the prepending of [Bulk] to the subject of such mis-classified e-mail that is driving me mad. The implication of what was said was that there was nothing that could be done about that, other than that if I recall correctly he would feed back my observations. (As an aside some of the e-mails sent recently recommending, and then demanding that one changes one's e-mail password has [Bulk] in the subject but that is fine, because clearly this was bulk e-mail).
Anyway, I have more or less decided that I cannot do without using an e-mail client for a week and hence it appears that there is no solution for me at least.
The person appeared to be in something of a rush to complete the call, and reluctant to get into a detailed technical discussion of user interfaces etc. so unfortunately I wasn't able to explore whether the recent removal and reintroduction of the ability to download Spam with a marking - as explained in licquorice's post - was implicated.
I will have a think as to what to do next over the holiday period. The options seems to be: 1) attempt to implement a script that removes [Bulk] from the subject 2) try to get in to BT at a higher level in order that the issue can acquire greater traction 3) involve the press 4) abandon my @btinternet e-mail addresses in favour of another provider (which would then probably lead me eventually abandon BT altogether).
By the way, can this forum post be 'unsolved'?
What an unbelievable load of tosh from the 'expert'.
If you marked it as solved, you can unmark it.
Well, you're probably right about my being told tosh, but in fairness the mail man was kind enough to wish me a Merry Christmas.
It wasn't obvious how to negate 'Mark As Accepted Solution', which is what I think I did, but I've tried 'Mark as New' under 'Topic Options'. I hope I haven't broken anything . . .