On 9/26/2020 3:31 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
A pointer to a better aimed report circulated on this list:
An unrefereed presentation (not paper) about a single experiment is better than a summary of an industry-wide effort that failed?
And the presentation cited SMTP Mail From, as if that were the important field to protect. (And it doesn't even mention DKIM.)
Also, the researchers appear not to know about the issue of co-variates. (eg, 21% of their subjects had graduate degrees...)
And, for the current discussion, there's the troublesome summary the they give about their own study:
1. Warning only slightly lowers the click rate 2. The absolute click rate is still high
The key words there are "slightly" and "still high". Prompting the question of why anyone would think this study serves as demonstrating strong support for the role of end-users in abuse protection?
All of which demonstrates a basic problem with efforts to discuss human-related work: difficulties in understanding how to evaluate research and research patterns, with a tendency to instead lean on confirmation bias.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
