On 1/5/2021 12:11 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 1/5/21 12:04 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
1. I've looked back over his postings to this mailing list and am not
finding the link you refer to. Please post it (again).
2. A single study is unlikely to be definitive about much of anything.
https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity18/sec18-hu.pdf
thanks.
How carefully did you read the details? While I suppose the study is a
bit interesting, it's a very long way from serving as definitive 'proof'
of much of anything.
Actual data, actual experiments. Finally. And it's a lot better than
all of the conjecture here which is the currency of the realm.
You might want to review the actual semantics of the statistical methods
used for actual experiments. They don't mean what you seem to think
they mean. In particular note that the focus of such semantics is on
negatives, rather than positives. It's the reason that conclusions
about affirmative statements require a constellation of studies.
I use my inner Luddite to use all of the time. It's one of my skills.
But an MUA designed with security in mind with its UI would go a long
way too. From re-writing is exactly the wrong thing to do from a
security standpoint though.
That's been a regular refrain, for decades. Odd that we do not yet see
actual efficacy, after all that... conjecture.
By now, there should be that constellation of compelling evidence for
the efficacy of visual indicators with average recipients.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
dcroc...@gmail.com
408.329.0791
Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
dave.crock...@redcross.org
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
