Is Outlook software's filter marking @earthlink.net domain as junks these days?

[Ant]

Hello.

Is it me or is Outlook's filter blocking @earthlink.net e-mails these
days? They do not go to Outlook's inbox, but its junk folder. I tried
multiple @earthlink.net e-mail addresses from various sources to various
Outlook software clients' destinations with different e-mail addresses
(e.g., gmail.com, etc.). I am seeing this from various people including
myself lately who are seeing my e-mails in their Outlook's software junk
folders. It doesn't matter which EarthLink e-mail addresses, ISPs,
locations, versions, OSes (Mac OS X and Windows), etc. ISPs' webmails'
filters do not block them like Outlook so it is not ISPs' filters. I do
notice it is between @earthlink.net and Outlook.

Thank you in advance. :)
--
"Really. And do these lions eat ants?" --John Cleese in Monty Python's
Flying Circus
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[VanguardLH]

Ant wrote:

> Is it me or is Outlook's filter blocking @earthlink.net e-mails these
> days? They do not go to Outlook's inbox, but its junk folder. I tried
> multiple @earthlink.net e-mail addresses from various sources to various
> Outlook software clients' destinations with different e-mail addresses
> (e.g., gmail.com, etc.). I am seeing this from various people including
> myself lately who are seeing my e-mails in their Outlook's software junk
> folders. It doesn't matter which EarthLink e-mail addresses, ISPs,
> locations, versions, OSes (Mac OS X and Windows), etc. ISPs' webmails'
> filters do not block them like Outlook so it is not ISPs' filters. I do
> notice it is between @earthlink.net and Outlook.

It's not moved into the Junk/Spam/Bulk folder up on the server; i.e.,
the messages reside in the server-side Inbox folder. When retrieved to
Outlook, they have been moved into the Junk folder. So I have to guess
that you are using POP to access your e-mail accounts and not IMAP.
With IMAP, where you see a message in Outlook is the same place you see
it up on the server. If Outlook moved a message from Inbox to Junk then
IMAP synchronization would do the same up on the server. POP is just
1-way synchronization: downward only.

Alas, on my home PC where I'm responding to you, I no longer have
Outlook installed. I'm using Thunderbird but after a 4-month long trial
I'm fed up with screw ups and deficiencies in Thunderbird and will be
going back to Outlook. As I recall, you can disable using the junk
filtering that is inbuilt into Outlook. It is a simplistic Bayes
filter: a guessing scheme based on weighting of keywords over a history
of received e-mails and requiring feedback regarding spam/ham status to
learn and keep learning with the expectation of reduced user input over
time. Because it's a guessing scheme means it will produce false
positives.

Each month an update to Outlook's junk filter gets pushed out. They use
this to establish a base of keyword weighting rather than require the
user to acquire sufficient history and volume of e-mails to establish a
base on which to guess the spam/ham status of a message. With this
monthly junk filter update from Microsoft, it is possible they added a
spam weighting that affects your particularly volume of e-mails. You
could define a rule to whitelist particular Earthlink senders or the
whole @earthlink.net domain, or do the same by adding the senders or
domain to the Safe Senders whitelist.

I've used the Bayesian filter for something like 6 years, or more.
However, since it is a guessing scheme based on your personal volume of
e-mails, I always used a spam filtering proxy that let me use DNSBLs
(DNS blocklists), like Spamhaus and Spamcop to more accurately determine
if an e-mail originated from a known spam source. Bayes filter was the
LAST filter used but given little weight in determining spam/ham status.
Outlook only has its simple Bayes filter. That's all. When I was using
Outlook before, I disabled its junk filtering mostly because the
server-side spam filtering had gotten good enough over the years to be
just as good or better than a client-side Bayes filter alone. With the
server-side spam filtering and with maybe about 6 rules in Outlook,
almost all spam was detected with very few false positives. In fact,
most of those client-side anti-spam rules got moved up to my account on
the server so they were superfluous (and disabled) in Outlook.

See what happens for awhile when you disable your rules and disable
Outlook's junk filter. Bayes filters are not accurate. It only takes a
couple of critical e-mails flagged as spam by a guessing scheme to
realize that Bayes filtering is too unreliable versus using an anti-spam
program that utilizes the DNSBLs that record *known* and *current* spam
sources.

[Ant]

On 7/26/2014 9:51 PM PT, VanguardLH typed:

>> Is it me or is Outlook's filter blocking @earthlink.net e-mails these
>> days? They do not go to Outlook's inbox, but its junk folder. I tried
>> multiple @earthlink.net e-mail addresses from various sources to various
>> Outlook software clients' destinations with different e-mail addresses
>> (e.g., gmail.com, etc.). I am seeing this from various people including
>> myself lately who are seeing my e-mails in their Outlook's software junk
>> folders. It doesn't matter which EarthLink e-mail addresses, ISPs,
>> locations, versions, OSes (Mac OS X and Windows), etc. ISPs' webmails'
>> filters do not block them like Outlook so it is not ISPs' filters. I do
>> notice it is between @earthlink.net and Outlook.
>
> It's not moved into the Junk/Spam/Bulk folder up on the server; i.e.,
> the messages reside in the server-side Inbox folder. When retrieved to
> Outlook, they have been moved into the Junk folder. So I have to guess
> that you are using POP to access your e-mail accounts and not IMAP.
> With IMAP, where you see a message in Outlook is the same place you see
> it up on the server. If Outlook moved a message from Inbox to Junk then
> IMAP synchronization would do the same up on the server. POP is just
> 1-way synchronization: downward only.

In my Outlook, I see it happen at work. It uses whatever MS Exchange.
IMAP? On my friends' Outlook, they use Gmail. So IMAP?

> Alas, on my home PC where I'm responding to you, I no longer have
> Outlook installed. I'm using Thunderbird but after a 4-month long trial
> I'm fed up with screw ups and deficiencies in Thunderbird and will be
> going back to Outlook. As I recall, you can disable using the junk
> filtering that is inbuilt into Outlook. It is a simplistic Bayes
> filter: a guessing scheme based on weighting of keywords over a history
> of received e-mails and requiring feedback regarding spam/ham status to
> learn and keep learning with the expectation of reduced user input over
> time. Because it's a guessing scheme means it will produce false
> positives.

Hmm, is there a way to see this filter list like to see if EarthLink is
on its list or something? Or contact them?

Thanks.
--
"There are things in the Universe billions of years older than either of
our races. They are vast, timeless, and if they are aware of us at all,
it is as little more than ants and we have as much chance of
communicating with them as an ant has with us. We know. We've tried and
we've learned that we can either stay out from underfoot or be stepped
on. They are a mystery and I am both terrified and reassured that to
know that there are still wonders in the Universe, that we have not
explained everything. Whatever they are, Miss Sakai, they walk near
Sigma 957 and they must walk there alone." --G'Kar - Mind War

[VanguardLH]

Ant wrote:

> Hmm, is there a way to see this filter list like to see if EarthLink is
> on its list or something? Or contact them?

No means is provided by Microsoft to interrogate their keyword and
weighting database.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=15026

You didn't mention which version you have. It's likely the same file(s)
get updated each month to install Microsoft's latest Bayes database.
The KB article doesn't mention which file(s) get updated. I suppose you
could use something to track changes on your computer in its file system
to see what the update modified.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2880505

Ah, that one says the Bayes database is stored in the outfltr.dat file.
You could look at it in read-only mode in a hex editor or even in
Notepad to see if you can detect any strings in there. SysInternal's
has their 'strings' command-line tool to extract strings from a file, so
you could run something like:

strings.exe <path>outfltr.dat > bayes.txt & notepad.exe bayes.txt

(this is off the cuff and I haven't tested if all that syntax is valid;
for example, I'd have to recheck if & or && is best for the inline
command delimiter as one runs the next command regardless of what status
was returned by the prior command and the other runs the next command
only if the error status was zero from the prior command meaning no
errors)

I don't have an outfltr.dat file to look at. As I mentioned, I stopped
using Outlook back in February. I still had Office 2003. Outlook 2003
does not support TLS and Microsoft now demands it when accessing
Hotmail, Live, or Outlook.com. The mail session times out or errors
because the server waits for the client to issue the STARTTLS command
which never arrives from a client that doesn't support TLS. If I go
back to using OL2003, I'll have to configure its account definitions to
use non-SSL connections and employ Avast's e-mail proxy to do the
SSL/TLS with the server. Or I'll have to bite the bullet and buy a
later version of MS Office that includes the Outlook component.

Have you found Outlook's junk (Bayes) filter really that useful to you?
Other than the server-side anti-spam filter putting suspect messages in
the Junk/Spam/Bulk folder up in your online account, has Outlook caught
any additional *real* spam e-mails (and not just e-mails that you don't
happen to like but actual spam, like that which is UBE or UCE)?

Doesn't Outlook let you disable its junk filter? Then you could test if
those previously flagged e-mails come without without getting junked by
Outlook. If you have rules defined, you need to check them, especially
if you did not employ the "stop further processing" clause to eliminate
unwanted side effects from having more rules get exercised on a message
beyond the one that already fired according to its criteria. In fact,
every rule should employ the stop-clause unless you are deliberately
OR'ing two, or more, rules together.

You don't want to whitelist the senders or @earthlink.net via rules or
Safe Senders until Microsoft shoves out its next junk filter update?

[Ant]

On 7/27/2014 4:31 AM PT, VanguardLH typed:

> You didn't mention which version you have. It's likely the same file(s)

IIRC, the latest Office 2011 for Mac, work's 2010 Pro., etc. ALl with
their latest up(dat/grad)es too.

> Have you found Outlook's junk (Bayes) filter really that useful to you?
> Other than the server-side anti-spam filter putting suspect messages in
> the Junk/Spam/Bulk folder up in your online account, has Outlook caught
> any additional *real* spam e-mails (and not just e-mails that you don't
> happen to like but actual spam, like that which is UBE or UCE)?

Yes, it has caught real spams like those foreign ones (e.g., asian) that
come once in a while. My work's e-mail address is over a decade old so...

> Doesn't Outlook let you disable its junk filter? Then you could test if
> those previously flagged e-mails come without without getting junked by
> Outlook. If you have rules defined, you need to check them, especially
> if you did not employ the "stop further processing" clause to eliminate
> unwanted side effects from having more rules get exercised on a message
> beyond the one that already fired according to its criteria. In fact,
> every rule should employ the stop-clause unless you are deliberately
> OR'ing two, or more, rules together.

I'll try that. I am pretty sure it is Outlook's filters.

> You don't want to whitelist the senders or @earthlink.net via rules or
> Safe Senders until Microsoft shoves out its next junk filter update?

I noticed this problem for months so, and starting to noticed more and
more users with this problem with EarthLink e-mail addresses like mine.
--
"You'd think we could just attract ants like normal people." --Wolverine
(X-Men:TAS)

[VanguardLH]

Ant wrote:

> VanguardLH typed:
>
>> You didn't mention which version you have. It's likely the same file(s)
>
> IIRC, the latest Office 2011 for Mac,

I have no experience using Outlook, any version, on a Mac so I cannot
attest to its behavior or which file(s) are used to store the keyword
database for Outlook's junk filter.

> work's 2010 Pro.,

Are you referring to MS Works?

Or that Outlook 2010 in Office 2010 Pro works okay (i.e., you don't get
the spam flag problem in Outlook 2010)?

> etc.

I don't know "etc".

Are you trying to say that the junk filter doesn't behave how you want
in Outlook from Office 2011 for Mac, Outlook from Office 2010 Pro, and
every other (etc) version of Outlook you have tried?

>> Have you found Outlook's junk (Bayes) filter really that useful to you?
>> Other than the server-side anti-spam filter putting suspect messages in
>> the Junk/Spam/Bulk folder up in your online account, has Outlook caught
>> any additional *real* spam e-mails (and not just e-mails that you don't
>> happen to like but actual spam, like that which is UBE or UCE)?
>
> Yes, it has caught real spams like those foreign ones (e.g., asian) that
> come once in a while. My work's e-mail address is over a decade old so...

As I recall, you don't even the junk filter for catching other-language
messages. There is a section solely for languages where you can reject
messages that use languages you don't understand. Even if I write to a
mobo maker in China, they reply in Engrisch; i.e., the encoding
specified in their reply is a character set that I can read. I think I
had about 3-4 charsets selected as acceptable and all the others would
get rejected (junked). That filtering works only on the encoding
charset specified by headers in the message, not on how someone might
use the characters in writing their message (i.e., like trying to use
ASCII-8 to write messages with umlauts, carats, and other character
punctuation characters).

At work and when using Exchange, the server-side anti-spam filtering
should be all you need. If it is missing spams then you need to notify
your IT folks about the omissions. They are using some anti-spam filter
up on their Exchange server, right?

For your friend's Outlook, his setup could be different than yours so I
wouldn't rely on behavior in his setup reflecting how to resolve
problems in your setup. Whether you friend uses POP or IMAP depends on
how he configured the server-side settings in his Gmail account. For
POP, items he sees in the Junk folder in Outlook would only be there due
to something in Outlook, like junk filtering, blacklist, rules, or an
add-on. He only has access to the server-side Inbox when using POP, so
retrieving them from the server Inbox into Outlook's Inbox and then
moving into Outlook's junk folder means Outlook did that. With IMAP,
items in the Junk folder could've been put there by the server so
Outlook simply reflects the current contents of the server's Junk
folder, or the message was in the server's Inbox, came to Outlook's
Inbox, but Outlook moved it into its Junk folder -- and due to IMAP
synchronization means that Outlook would sent a Purge command to remove
the message from the server's Inbox and send up a copy to the server's
Junk folder from Outlook's Junk folder. Your friend might also be
accessing his e-mail account using Outlook on one host, another e-mail
client on another host, or an app on a smartphone and all of which could
affect what is where in the server's folders when using IMAP.

POP only understands the concept of a mailbox. There are no folders
when using POP. There are no commands in POP to select or manipulate
folders. To POP, the server-side Inbox folder is the mailbox and the
only place from which a client can retrieve messages. If the server-
side anti-spam filter moved a message into the server-side Junk folder,
a POP client will never see that server-side junked message. So if POP
is used and a message shows up in the client's Junk folder then the
client moved that message from its Inbox (where all e-mails are first
delivered when using POP) into its Junk folder.

IMAP does understand folders (well, to those you configure the client to
subscribe to). An IMAP client will synchronize the contents of its
client-side folders to the matching server-side folders. So there are 2
possibilities on how a message got into Outlook's Junk folder. One is
the server's anti-spam filter put a suspect message into the server-side
Junk folder and then Outlook synchronizes with the server, pulls down a
copy of the message in the server-side Junk folder into its own local
Junk folder. Two is Outlook got the message in the Inbox folder, moved
it to its local Junk folder, and then Outlook synchronizes with the
server to upload a copy of that message in its Junk folder into the
server-side Junk folder. IMAP means synchronizing the contents of the
folders, so if the server moves a message or the client moves a message
then that move gets reflected at the other end after synchronization.
This also means other clients, like apps on smartphones or e-mail
clients in notebooks, connecting to the same account and making changes
will do their synchronization to match up client and server folders and
then your Outlook on your host will reflect those same changes when it
synchronizes. IMAP not only allows for use of folders but to maintain a
synchronized view of an account across multiple clients connecting to
the same account.

For Gmail or other e-mail providers, I'd disable Outlook's junk
filtering to see if the erroneous spam flagging is stopped. At work,
I'm not sure they even want you using a Bayes filter in the e-mail
client. Report ham flagged as spam to your IT folks to see if they have
a problem with their filter. Of course, if its the Bayes filter in
Outlook flagging ham as spam then the obvious cure is not to use
Outlook's junk filter. Your workplace's anti-spam filter should be
catching the spam, not the clients connecting to their network and using
their Exchange server.

[Ant]

On 7/26/2014 8:07 AM PT, Ant typed:

> Is it me or is Outlook's filter blocking @earthlink.net e-mails these
> days? They do not go to Outlook's inbox, but its junk folder. I tried
> multiple @earthlink.net e-mail addresses from various sources to various
> Outlook software clients' destinations with different e-mail addresses
> (e.g., gmail.com, etc.). I am seeing this from various people including
> myself lately who are seeing my e-mails in their Outlook's software junk
> folders. It doesn't matter which EarthLink e-mail addresses, ISPs,
> locations, versions, OSes (Mac OS X and Windows), etc. ISPs' webmails'
> filters do not block them like Outlook so it is not ISPs' filters. I do
> notice it is between @earthlink.net and Outlook.

I borrowed someone's 13.3" MacBook Pro (from mid-2012) that has updated
Office 2011, so I tried his Outlook (he never used it too) and added my
EarthLink account with defaults. I was unable to reproduce it since all
my test EarthLink e-mails came into the inbox just fine.

Weird. I have no idea what is going on. :(
--
"When you can't fight on and drop to die; you're just a big tasty feast
for the crows, ants, buzzards and flies." --unknown

[Ant]

On 7/27/2014 12:19 PM PT, VanguardLH typed:

> I have no experience using Outlook, any version, on a Mac so I cannot
> attest to its behavior or which file(s) are used to store the keyword
> database for Outlook's junk filter.
>
>> work's 2010 Pro.,
>
> Are you referring to MS Works?

No, work as in employer's. :)

> Or that Outlook 2010 in Office 2010 Pro works okay (i.e., you don't get
> the spam flag problem in Outlook 2010)?

My work's Outlook 2010 Pro has the same filter problem.

> Are you trying to say that the junk filter doesn't behave how you want
> in Outlook from Office 2011 for Mac, Outlook from Office 2010 Pro, and
> every other (etc) version of Outlook you have tried?

No, it is marking my EarthLink e-mails as junk by default for others and
me in Outlook client software.

>>> Have you found Outlook's junk (Bayes) filter really that useful to you?
>>> Other than the server-side anti-spam filter putting suspect messages in
>>> the Junk/Spam/Bulk folder up in your online account, has Outlook caught
>>> any additional *real* spam e-mails (and not just e-mails that you don't
>>> happen to like but actual spam, like that which is UBE or UCE)?
>>
>> Yes, it has caught real spams like those foreign ones (e.g., asian) that
>> come once in a while. My work's e-mail address is over a decade old so...
>
> As I recall, you don't even the junk filter for catching other-language
> messages. There is a section solely for languages where you can reject
> messages that use languages you don't understand. Even if I write to a
> mobo maker in China, they reply in Engrisch; i.e., the encoding
> specified in their reply is a character set that I can read. I think I
> had about 3-4 charsets selected as acceptable and all the others would
> get rejected (junked). That filtering works only on the encoding
> charset specified by headers in the message, not on how someone might
> use the characters in writing their message (i.e., like trying to use
> ASCII-8 to write messages with umlauts, carats, and other character
> punctuation characters).
>
> At work and when using Exchange, the server-side anti-spam filtering
> should be all you need. If it is missing spams then you need to notify
> your IT folks about the omissions. They are using some anti-spam filter
> up on their Exchange server, right?

Interesting. Well, all the EarthLink e-mails I saw at work were moved
into Outlook's junk folder so...

Someone told me to check work's Outlook's webmail to see if they get
makred as junks too so I will try that tomorrow or so.
--
"I got this aunt... Carpenter ant." --Girl and Crow

/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.

A song (i/wa)s playing on this computer: The Darkness - Givin' Up

[Ant]

> > Is it me or is Outlook's filter blocking @earthlink.net e-mails these
> > days? They do not go to Outlook's inbox, but its junk folder. I tried
> > multiple @earthlink.net e-mail addresses from various sources to various
> > Outlook software clients' destinations with different e-mail addresses
> > (e.g., gmail.com, etc.). I am seeing this from various people including
> > myself lately who are seeing my e-mails in their Outlook's software junk
> > folders. It doesn't matter which EarthLink e-mail addresses, ISPs,
> > locations, versions, OSes (Mac OS X and Windows), etc. ISPs' webmails'
> > filters do not block them like Outlook so it is not ISPs' filters. I do
> > notice it is between @earthlink.net and Outlook.

> I borrowed someone's 13.3" MacBook Pro (from mid-2012) that has updated
> Office 2011, so I tried his Outlook (he never used it too) and added my
> EarthLink account with defaults. I was unable to reproduce it since all
> my test EarthLink e-mails came into the inbox just fine.

I checked my work's Outlook Web Access (OWA), and my EarthLink e-mail
was in its inbox folder and not in junk folder. In my work's 32-bit
Outlook Pro Plus 2010 v14.0.7128.5000 on the same updated 64-bit W7 EE
SP1 desktop computer, it was in the junk folder. :(

I also checked Outlook's "Junk E-mail Options", and it showed its level
of junk e-mail protection as "Low: Move the most obvious junk e-mail to
the Junk E-mail folder." I also checked the other filter settings and
they seem OK (e.g., no blocked @earthlink.net).

So, this is indeed an Outlook issue. Now, need to figure out how to fix
it for others and me.
--
Quote of the Week: "God is a mean kid sitting on an ant-hill with a
magnifying glass, and I'm the ant." --Bruce Nolan (Bruce Almighty movie)
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)

/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |

\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
( ) then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

[VanguardLH]

What anti-virus software are you using? Is it the same AV setup on
every host where you tested junking behavior? Have you tried to
configure it to NOT interrogate your e-mail traffic or uninstall its
module that interrogates your e-mail traffic?

[Ant]

On 7/29/2014 10:45 AM PT, VanguardLH typed:

> What anti-virus software are you using? Is it the same AV setup on
> every host where you tested junking behavior? Have you tried to
> configure it to NOT interrogate your e-mail traffic or uninstall its
> module that interrogates your e-mail traffic?

My friend's MacBook is running none. At work, it is Norton 360. I high
doubt it is an AV. Is there a way to check in Outlook?
--
"Even the ant has his (her) bite." --Turkish
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)

/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |

[VanguardLH]

Ant wrote:

> On 7/29/2014 10:45 AM PT, VanguardLH typed:
>
>> What anti-virus software are you using? Is it the same AV setup on
>> every host where you tested junking behavior? Have you tried to
>> configure it to NOT interrogate your e-mail traffic or uninstall its
>> module that interrogates your e-mail traffic?
>
> My friend's MacBook is running none. At work, it is Norton 360. I high
> doubt it is an AV. Is there a way to check in Outlook?

Disable the AV software and test.

Note that disabling some AV programs does NOT get them out of the path
for e-mail traffic. Norton and Macfee, for example, use transparent
proxies to interrogate the e-mail traffic. Disabling them merely
disables interrogation of the e-mail traffic but the e-mail traffic
still has to pass through their proxy. If their proxy gets slow or
unresponsive then so does the e-mail traffic get slow or blocked. You
have to reboot Windows to get their transparent proxy working again. To
correctly test if disabling the AV's e-mail scanning is causing the
problem, you have to uninstall or modify the AV program's installation
to remove the e-mail scanning feature.

I doubt that delays or even corruption of e-mail traffic through an AV
proxy would cause blank windows for Outlook; however, AV programs do dig
deep into the OS and can cause a myriad of unwanted symptoms when they
do not function properly. For example, an AV program may have trouble
inspecting the message store (PST file) for Outlook because that file is
always inuse (open and having write access means it is locked). The AV
program may install an add-on to scan your e-mails from inside of
Outlook. This will add delay in Outlook's screen updates and can
misbehavior of Outlook.

For awhile to test if the blank screen problem remains or goes away,
have your startup of Outlook use its safe mode (i.e., add the /safe
command-line argument). If the blank screen doesn't reappear on Outlook
getting loaded as a startup item then it's likely an add-on is at fault.

[Ant]

On 7/26/2014 8:07 AM, Ant wrote:

> Is it me or is Outlook's filter blocking @earthlink.net e-mails these
> days? They do not go to Outlook's inbox, but its junk folder. I tried
> multiple @earthlink.net e-mail addresses from various sources to various
> Outlook software clients' destinations with different e-mail addresses
> (e.g., gmail.com, etc.). I am seeing this from various people including
> myself lately who are seeing my e-mails in their Outlook's software junk
> folders. It doesn't matter which EarthLink e-mail addresses, ISPs,
> locations, versions, OSes (Mac OS X and Windows), etc. ISPs' webmails'
> filters do not block them like Outlook so it is not ISPs' filters. I do
> notice it is between @earthlink.net and Outlook.

FYI. As of the last several weeks, this issue seem to be mostly gone.
Most of the times, they go through but once in a while they get marked
as spams. :/
--
"... Alice's honesty felt like fire ants on his skin..." --Dilbert's
7/12/2015 comic strip's panel #4
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see
this signature correctly.

/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

( ) Chop ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.