11–16 of 16 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That page seems like it used a lot of fancy language to say something that could be said in two sentences.
What are the two sentences so I don’t have to click the link?
> By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive ratio in his favor.
(American Express is in fairness the one site that continued working ok as I recall)
Unless of course they were clever enough to embed some fake cookie to track responses to specific emails...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the two sentences so I don’t have to click the link?
Honestly just one: > By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive ratio in his favor.
I mean the people who take the time to troll the scammer back want enjoyment out of it, and the chance of getting that enjoyment would seem to be heightened if the scammer seems more likely to be an idiot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly just one: > By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive ratio in his favor.
I wonder about that - is there a bad spot where the obvious scam mail is so obvious that it prompts more people to troll the scammer back? I mean the people who take the time to troll the scammer back want enjoyment out of it, and the chance of getting that enjoyment would seem to be heightened if the scammer seems more likely to be an idiot.
I did get an IRS scam VOIP number shutdown last week in about 15 minutes.