 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-2-2015 16:15, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I find the most hilarious the fact that a phishing mail warns for
> phishing of its own phishing. If on purpose, then those guys have a
> (particular) sense of humour, if not, they are plain stupid. :-)
>
...with a special note to Clipka's explanation as a third option ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/02/15 15:21, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 9-2-2015 16:15, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I find the most hilarious the fact that a phishing mail warns for
>> phishing of its own phishing. If on purpose, then those guys have a
>> (particular) sense of humour, if not, they are plain stupid. :-)
>>
> ....with a special note to Clipka's explanation as a third option ;-)
>
I seem to remember reading, possibly here, that misspelt or
syntactically incorrect phishing emails do indeed have a higher success
rate than those with flawless $INSERT_LANGUAGE_OF_CHOICE. There was a
link to an academic paper but right now I can't find it.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:09:25 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
> On 09/02/15 15:21, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 9-2-2015 16:15, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> I find the most hilarious the fact that a phishing mail warns for
>>> phishing of its own phishing. If on purpose, then those guys have a
>>> (particular) sense of humour, if not, they are plain stupid. :-)
>>>
>> ....with a special note to Clipka's explanation as a third option ;-)
>>
>>
> I seem to remember reading, possibly here, that misspelt or
> syntactically incorrect phishing emails do indeed have a higher success
> rate than those with flawless $INSERT_LANGUAGE_OF_CHOICE. There was a
> link to an academic paper but right now I can't find it.
Yeah, the supposed purpose of the poor grammar/spelling is to weed out
people who aren't going to fall for it anyways.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-2-2015 22:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:09:25 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>
>> On 09/02/15 15:21, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 9-2-2015 16:15, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> I find the most hilarious the fact that a phishing mail warns for
>>>> phishing of its own phishing. If on purpose, then those guys have a
>>>> (particular) sense of humour, if not, they are plain stupid. :-)
>>>>
>>> ....with a special note to Clipka's explanation as a third option ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I seem to remember reading, possibly here, that misspelt or
>> syntactically incorrect phishing emails do indeed have a higher success
>> rate than those with flawless $INSERT_LANGUAGE_OF_CHOICE. There was a
>> link to an academic paper but right now I can't find it.
>
> Yeah, the supposed purpose of the poor grammar/spelling is to weed out
> people who aren't going to fall for it anyways.
>
> Jim
>
I am impressed. There is /real/ psychology put into phishing... :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/02/2015 08:26, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 9-2-2015 22:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:09:25 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/02/15 15:21, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 9-2-2015 16:15, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>> I find the most hilarious the fact that a phishing mail warns for
>>>>> phishing of its own phishing. If on purpose, then those guys have a
>>>>> (particular) sense of humour, if not, they are plain stupid. :-)
>>>>>
>>>> ....with a special note to Clipka's explanation as a third option ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I seem to remember reading, possibly here, that misspelt or
>>> syntactically incorrect phishing emails do indeed have a higher success
>>> rate than those with flawless $INSERT_LANGUAGE_OF_CHOICE. There was a
>>> link to an academic paper but right now I can't find it.
>>
>> Yeah, the supposed purpose of the poor grammar/spelling is to weed out
>> people who aren't going to fall for it anyways.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> I am impressed. There is /real/ psychology put into phishing... :-)
>
Easier than working for a living.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I seem to remember reading, possibly here, that misspelt or
> syntactically incorrect phishing emails do indeed have a higher success
> rate than those with flawless $INSERT_LANGUAGE_OF_CHOICE. There was a
> link to an academic paper but right now I can't find it.
Only if you measure "success rate" as the number of scammed people per
1000 clicks on the scam link in the email.
If you measure it as the number of scammed people per 1000 emails sent
out then you'll get a better success rate with a correctly worded email.
I guess it depends if the scammer is paying for website bandwidth or not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-2-2015 10:52, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/02/2015 08:26, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 9-2-2015 22:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:09:25 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/02/15 15:21, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>> On 9-2-2015 16:15, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>> I find the most hilarious the fact that a phishing mail warns for
>>>>>> phishing of its own phishing. If on purpose, then those guys have a
>>>>>> (particular) sense of humour, if not, they are plain stupid. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> ....with a special note to Clipka's explanation as a third option ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I seem to remember reading, possibly here, that misspelt or
>>>> syntactically incorrect phishing emails do indeed have a higher success
>>>> rate than those with flawless $INSERT_LANGUAGE_OF_CHOICE. There was a
>>>> link to an academic paper but right now I can't find it.
>>>
>>> Yeah, the supposed purpose of the poor grammar/spelling is to weed out
>>> people who aren't going to fall for it anyways.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>> I am impressed. There is /real/ psychology put into phishing... :-)
>>
>
> Easier than working for a living.
>
There is much wisdom in that...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:26:48 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 9-2-2015 22:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:09:25 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/02/15 15:21, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 9-2-2015 16:15, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>> I find the most hilarious the fact that a phishing mail warns for
>>>>> phishing of its own phishing. If on purpose, then those guys have a
>>>>> (particular) sense of humour, if not, they are plain stupid. :-)
>>>>>
>>>> ....with a special note to Clipka's explanation as a third option ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I seem to remember reading, possibly here, that misspelt or
>>> syntactically incorrect phishing emails do indeed have a higher
>>> success rate than those with flawless $INSERT_LANGUAGE_OF_CHOICE.
>>> There was a link to an academic paper but right now I can't find it.
>>
>> Yeah, the supposed purpose of the poor grammar/spelling is to weed out
>> people who aren't going to fall for it anyways.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> I am impressed. There is /real/ psychology put into phishing... :-)
I was quite surprised to read that myself, but it makes a certain amount
of sense.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:47:49 +0000, scott wrote:
> Only if you measure "success rate" as the number of scammed people per
> 1000 clicks on the scam link in the email.
That is the metric that's used - it's the same sort of metric that's used
by spammers as well. They don't target well, they just blanket and hope
they can get a click. The high conversion rate for scammers is based
entirely on an initial response -> scam successful ratio, because they
don't want to waste their time with people like us who are just going to
waste their time.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2015-02-10 21:12, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:47:49 +0000, scott wrote:
>
>> Only if you measure "success rate" as the number of scammed people per
>> 1000 clicks on the scam link in the email.
>
> That is the metric that's used - it's the same sort of metric that's used
> by spammers as well. They don't target well, they just blanket and hope
> they can get a click. The high conversion rate for scammers is based
> entirely on an initial response -> scam successful ratio, because they
> don't want to waste their time with people like us who are just going to
> waste their time.
>
> Jim
>
Yep. Just like when "Jenny from Windows support" calls saying our
computer has a virus, and my wife says "hang on, I'll let you speak to
my husband, he's the one who takes care of the computers around the
house", they usually hang up, because they don't want to waste their
time with someone who's going to mess with them for 35 minutes.
/Not that I would ever do such a thing... Honest. :D
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
