> but honestly I'd rather have some SPAM get through than get HAM marked and placed in the big fucking SPAM bucket I never check.
This is why I like that my email provider (https://mailbox.org/en/) simply rejects all messages detected as spam: False positives don't get lost in a spam folder I never check, instead the sender gets a mail delivery failure notice by their own mail server and at least get a notification that they couldn't reach me.
so i got a notification that you didn't get the email. fine. i still have no way to talk to you unless i sign up to some other email service and try it again.
depending on the reason to email you, i may not care enough. (maybe i wanted to buy your service)
if a customer emails me and i don't respond because i didn't get the email, i have a problem, not the customer.
the better solution would be both. respond with a delivery notice, AND deliver the email to my spam folder.
I have no idea if it actually is, but it might be a legal issue too in some jurisdictions. German law for example requires commercial sites to have an option for quick and electronic communication - Email is generally a valid choice. If your mail server rejects incoming mail (be it because it's overly sensitive, offline, or you never bothered setting it up etc), that could very well be considered as non-compliant.
Yes, but that has it's own challenges with spam protection, privacy laws, users not spelling their email correctly etc, and you still need an email address to receive those messages (or check for new form entries regularly), so an email address is often used as a shortcut.
This is why I like that my email provider (https://mailbox.org/en/) simply rejects all messages detected as spam: False positives don't get lost in a spam folder I never check, instead the sender gets a mail delivery failure notice by their own mail server and at least get a notification that they couldn't reach me.