I'm sorry to pile on but could not restrain myself: https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459?ijkey=c3677213eca83ff6599127794fc58c4e0f6de55a&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
I get Dave's point, but at the same time, it is well known that copy tweaks can have significant effects on conversion rates. Whether the specific tweak of the 5322.From header field's SMTP domain from <rando-domain> to <unprotected-by-dmarc-enforcement-domain> has an effect separate from any other subterfuges that might be being employed by the miscreant is probably hard to disambiguate, especially since in the real world, it is rare to have bare SMTP addresses in that header field. --Kurt On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 3:01 PM Dave Crocker <dcroc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wow. I'll ask folk to reread my text, here, carefully, since it specified > something quite narrow and concrete, but is somehow being taken to have > meant something broad and general: > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:46 PM Dave Crocker <dcroc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > However there appears to be no actual evidence that lying in the From > field affects end user behaviors, and certainly none that lying in the From > field about the domain name does. > > And again, there are all sorts of threats and all sorts of bad behaviors, > but the question is whether a particular kind of bad actor behavior affects > recipient end-user behavior. >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
