On 1/6/21 2:10 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:
2. A single study is unlikely to be definitive about much of anything.
Absolutely true.
Anyone relying on a single piece of evidence to prove their point is
wrong. I am absolutely sure there is a bigger body of research out
there and more data. In fact, I was at a conference in SF many years
ago reporting a study done between a mailbox provider and a large
sender of email. Their study showed quite definitively that visual
indicators in email do not affect user behavior in any statistically
meaningful way.
Dave made a categorical statement that the only thing that can have an
effect on phishing is filters. I provided that study as a counterpoint
which does not support his categorical assertion. He then tried to
assert that something completely irrelevant to email is pertinent to
prove his point: another one off study which is irrelevant to email. At
the very least categorical statements in the face of little data are
ridiculous, and should be ignored.
I think he’s representative of one kind of enduser. He’s getting a
trust indicator in email (DMARC fails) and doesn’t understand what
that indicator means or implies. When I shared the relevant piece of
the DMARC spec causing the DMARC failure he told me that was ‘all
gobbledygook’ and that alignment wasn’t even part of DMARC.
I beg your pardon. I designed and implemented SSP. If you don't know
what this is, you are unqualified to tell me what I do or don't
understand. Take your ad hominems elsewhere.
Mike, newbies
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
