On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM, David Woodhouse via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:
> Any bank *not* signing its direct-to-customer email should be prosecuted > as an accessory to fraud which it is enabling by actively training its > customers to succumb to phishing :) Since none of them do sign their mail with S/MIME today, will you be leading that prosecutorial effort personally? What kind of lawyers do you have lined up for the effort? -- Al Iverson | Chicago, IL | (312) 725-0130 spamresource.com / fhsdh.com / @aliverson _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
