On 1/5/2021 1:58 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 1/5/21 1:49 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 1/5/2021 1:20 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 1/5/21 1:18 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 1/5/2021 12:55 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
It also says with actual data that your assertion that users can't
be trusted for anything is not correct.
I didn't say that. And it didn't say that.
"Also, receiver filtering engines are all that matter." The word all
includes human beings. That's the nature of "all".
1. In terms of average use for typical email, it is.
What study asserts that for email? You wouldn't take my word for it if
I said that. But of course I wouldn't make a categorical statement
without empirical evidence.
You seem to be seeing a requirement to prove the negative, while the
actual requirement is to prove the positive. A claim that there is
meaningful efficacy, for average recipients, by having visual trust
indicators, requires affirmative demonstration that there is. There is
no requirement to prove there isn't. My point is that we have decades
of belief that it's useful but no demonstration that it actually is.
And we have history such as the EV effort, showing that it isn't.
Your focus on email, as somehow distinctive, would need some basis for
ignoring the web experience. Feel free to provide it.
You really should read the paper.
Your implication that I haven't is both odd and troublesome.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
[email protected]
408.329.0791
Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
