Re: [dmarc-ietf] Header Rewriting

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

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