I assume this proposal went live just a few days ago. I haven't looked at the filters to confirm, my apologies for bothering if my assumption is inaccurate.
I created this forum account to inform that I just disabled "Allow Acceptable Ads" specifically because of this change. The ads in outlook.live.com are intrusive in that they change size/shape/color every time I click in the window, whether to read the next email or navigate to another folder in my account. They are also intrusive in that the load times are long enough that it locks up multiple browser tabs while I am waiting for the ad to load.
I don't know how many years I have been allowing acceptable ads, I think I remember when this option was created, and I thought it was a good idea then.
Before I realized that turning off the 'Allow Acceptable Ads' option would solve this problem, I did submit a ticket with screenshot and browser information. The load times were so bad, I really thought it was a bug.
I'll subscribe to this thread, and if a solution is posted, I may very well allow acceptable ads again.
I understand that outlook.live.com is a service offered for free, ostensibly in exchange for viewing ads. If their business model requires me to view ads in order to not lose the email address I have had for 20 years, ABP isn't going to change that. But, since we all know that they can tell when ads are being blocked (there has always been a notice showing that they can tell their ads are being blocked, and trying to get you to purchase premium), this seems like a problem they (not ABP) ought to be solving. I suggest that adding intrusive ads to ABP's acceptable ads list is not the best solution for Microsoft's cash flow problem, nor is it ABP's responsibility in the first place.
But this is your business, and I am grateful for the benefit I receive from it. If allowing outlook ads is best for ABP's cash flow, I won't second guess you. Thank you for the work that you do in making the web an easier to navigate place for myself and my children.