Lol at this post after reading an article about this company being on the verge of going out of business.

It’s a preposterous claim with absolutely no evidence supporting it. Any idiot can see it doesn’t withstand a moment’s thought.

claim with absolutely no evidence supporting it

I work in tech

Multiple sources including a fucking Microsoft researcher

Bayesian filtering is a legacy strategy and Microsoft, for example, does not use it any more (because it’s inferior) except for legacy on-prem setups. Given you’ve attempted to be insulting, put words in my mouth and failed to provide supporting articles for your opinion I’m out. As I get enough of these sort of conversations at work and unless I start billing you… Lol’d at “Mr exchange server admin” though ngl.

Never claimed that, said that because that’s why I’m aware of it, not that it indicates any authority.

Did you honestly just google “scammer typos” so you could provide me with an expert source?

Not quite but pretty much yep. Given you claimed it was “nonsensical” I had hope me showing sources that weren’t just my saying so might make you reconsider your position. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it didn’t.

It’s a preposterous claim with absolutely no evidence supporting it. Any idiot can see it doesn’t withstand a moment’s thought.

You’re free to google “scammer typos” and check out the results yourself given there seems to be nothing I can do or link to convince you that this is a silly hill to die on.

is that including typos in order to evade filters improves response rates because it improves deliverability and does not discourage a significant number of victims.

What filters are these? I’ll have to keep an eye out for the grammar section in the inbound spam/phishing policies next time I’m managing a client in the exchange section of their tenant. Bad luck for those who don’t spell well, can’t use spell check or are ESL, I guess. Mistyped URLs or domains however, sure are a thing.

Er go, the type of people who become victims are not likely to be discouraged by typos.

*Ergo. I guess you’ve made up your mind, based on god knows what. I’ll leave you with a link from a university’s IT department from your google search terms, feel free to look at the rest of them any time you like.

It’s on purpose. If you can spot it, they don’t want you.

But what would the opinions based on another “Mr security guy”, aka a Microsoft researcher know.

I’m not arguing about this. Especially not with a baby account. This is an opinion informed by expert opinion on the matter, and I work in tech. If you think it’s “nonsensical” that’s on you.

However, the reason why phishing emails have so many typos is simple—they’re intentional and are included by design. The scammer’s goal is to send phishing emails to a very gullible, innocent victim. If they have typos, they’re essentially weeding out recipients too smart to fall for the scam.

Source.

Because you’re selecting with people who lack experience with scam/critical thinking to figure out they’re scams.

That easier done with more involved scams like phone calls you see YouTubers do. Especially since they likely paid for that info. Places like here there’s no buy in so it’s a volume game i imagine. If I can’t get you to another platform to buy me stuff I’d move on to the next one quickly as possible.

The same reason a lot scam emails are riddled with typos, follow recognisable formats (eg nigerian prince) and can be easily determined as scams. If you can spot it, you aren’t the mark. It’s a form of selection bias. If you recognise Nicole you probably aren’t new to Lemmy or the Fediverse and are a bad mark. I’d guess, I never followed the links, don’t generally follow links dm’d from random, days old accounts in general. Maybe Nicole truly is just thirsty for Lemmy friends and keeps getting banned lmao.