On 7/19/2020 5:04 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 11:33 AM Dave Crocker <dcroc...@gmail.com
<mailto:dcroc...@gmail.com>> wrote:
The track record is that people are unreliable at this.
There is quite a bit of distance between 'unreliable' and 'blindly
open and read absolutely everything'.
Is there?
Yes.
If there's no part of the From field that can be considered reliable,
then by opening even this email am I not exhibiting nearly-blind faith
that the indicators I can see (in this case the string "Dave Crocker
(gmail.com <http://gmail.com>)") have not been falsely generated? How
is this message, in terms of its trustworthiness, different from any
other?
It's an act of curiosity, not faith. You know that mail can be
spoofed. You might even suspect that I'm capable of lying. (Silly, I
know, but...) Or that I might be wrong. (Truly a foolish thought.) So
the process of deciding on the validity and worth of my message is
incremental and heuristic.
Human evaluation processes vary, but mostly are pretty complex. Except
when they aren't, though then it's often problematic.
Mostly, your line of comments is trying to apply logical reasoning,
which is rarely helpful in assessing human behavior.
All of which is why this is a really terrible forum for making
assertions or, worse, decisions, about end-user behavior.
Whereas talking in terms of receiving filtering engines is both simpler
and more useful.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
