Email client protection is not actually protecting email clients using secure ports then?
Completely baffling given secure ports are listed by default; even deceptive one might argue.
And who uses insecure ports? Not those interested about email client protection I imagine
So my takeaway is, users don't actually have the protection that the settings intimate they do, and this has been exposed due to changes in Big Sur which cause said protection that isn't there to crash?
In which case, is it that this has never worked, but this was only made evident due to the changes in Big Sur? Did ESET think this was working but it wasn't? Or did they always know but left the settings with secure ports listed by default anyway?
More questions than answers.
Please explain the logic here.