I, indeed, appreciate the fact QPW_Test admitted that theres a missing functionality and it may (should) be implemented in future releases.
I hope everyone here realizes that no one on posting on this thread is from Microsoft, so I'm not sure what you mean about "admitted". I'm stating an opinion based on what I have seen and what Microsoft has stated. As in I can see that even in comparison
to the Windows 8.1 Mail app some functionality has been dropped. And Microsoft has said that Windows 10 is going be done as a "Windows as a service" with continued improvements. There is a Windows Feedback app, and they are listening, because as an Insider
(And Insider is just a person that is willing to test pre release builds) I have watched them continually fix and add things.
Now in the overall scheme of things. I don't think it is reasonable to believe that these "apps" will ever be "full functional" in comparison to the desktop applications. And I base that on two things. One is the whole idea that an "app" needs to be "touch
friendly", work on small devices, and be "simple". These goals pretty much restrict how many features you can put in. A desktop application can put in more functionality in a smaller space simply because you are using a mouse instead of a finger. There
is also a limit to how much people will scroll and switch to other windows and such until they call the program too complicated. And the other deciding fact is making money. The full featured products like Outlook, make lots of money and Microsoft is certainly
not going to make anything that has all its features for free that directly competes with that.
As for practical workarounds for now, the more I think of it for the problem of spam I have better suggestions than my first suggestion. Some of which have already been suggested by others.
I suggested a new email client, because that directly addresses the request, but it is actually not the most effective.
I have almost no spam in Outlook. In fact the few times that I have had spam in Outlook, Outlook is mistaken about it. And I mark it not as junk.
Why?
It starts with good practices. How much spam you are going to get is going to be directly related to what kind of things you sign up for with your email address. A little pre-thought can save a lot of headache later. Second plan for "risky" email use.
For instance anything to do with a forum is "risky" in my opinion. The QPW_Test user name is connected to a throw away email address. As if I ever get too much email I will just dump the email address. In general I have four main email addresses, personal,
business, financial institutions, "the rest/possible spam". My email client reads the personal and business, and the others are setup to be forwarded to the personal email address.
The second part of this is the quality of the ISP/mail server software. I have a business support account that clearly I don't what to shutdown for spam, and clearly has to be very public (It is on my website). Along with my domain account I get email
addresses, and they are serviced by Google. And they do an excellent job of catching the spam. My regular ISP does an excellent job too even though they don't have much work to do because I have already limited the spam by my practices. They are servicing
the personal accounts. I use Yahoo mail for the "questionable" ones. and actually I'm not sure about their filters because I seems I do a pretty good job of not signing up with too many spammers, but I could simply abandon the email addresses I use for this
if I needed to.
The point here is that you have to realize that even if you are using a good full functional email client, the first line of defense is always the mail servers, and you control it with their web client. I have never seen a email client where you can control
all the rules and such from just the client. The spam filtering for the clients is just applied to what the server sends on. And in a lot of cases it would be better to use the server's web client to tell it about spam, so that their spam filtering can learn
from it.