The link goes to a bad Daily Mail summary. Uhm, it's The Daily Mail. So:
Primary source here.
After reading the summary and the primary source, I'd say this looks like sensationalism for the sake of it. To The Daily Mail's credit, they did ask the companies mentioned for comment. Their explanation? spam/phishing protection. Seems plausible to me. And yet the
primary source concludes with OMGLOL YEAH BUT THEY COULD BE LYING YOU DON'T KNOW OMFG TINFOIL HAT TINFOIL HAT.
Another interpretation, of course, is that only six of the fifty companies that were tested even
have spam or phishing protection.
