Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

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