On 4/10/2012 5:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 13:42, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2012 3:20 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 4/8/2012 13:05, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> Well, no, but its part and parcel to the same bloody problem of
>>>> figuring out
>>>> what you are looking at, and who sent it.
>>>
>>> It's easy to tell what you're looking at. You already have it.
>>>
>>> It's impossible to tell who it is from, except in a fairly abstract way
>>> like "at least one of the people who ought to be keeping their private
>>> key private has sent this."
>>>
>> If it was that trivial, people wouldn't keep falling for it. Just saying.
>
> You misunderstand. It's easy to look at an email message and tell what
> it says. It's very hard to look at an email message and tell what human
> it's from. That latter part is the primary cause of people "falling for
> it." If you could solve the latter problem, the former problem would
> drop to background radiation levels.
>
Yep, that is the issue, definitely.

Post a reply to this message