Re: Phishing

On 9/6/2024 4:59 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:

OTOH, if you are a WELCOMED caller, the phone actually *rings*.
>
Two of our phones only accept calls from the OTHER of our
phones (the numbers have never been "given out" to anyone
so an incoming call that is not from one of our phones is
obviously not something we want to receive).  If you
deliberately fail to set up your voicemail, then these
calls just fall off into never-never-land.
>

I don't bother filtering email except at the server level where some countries can't connect inbound at all.

 Actually that's not quite true because at the server level I also have
https://rspamd.com/ which works well.

I let my MTAs handle spam detection.  But, they can't determine if a
"please verify your email" message is warranted, or not.  And, those
often contain a link to make it easier for you to invoke a browser
at the specific target URL.

I can't remember when I last got a message containing a dodgy URL or dodgy attachment.
Unexpected attachments are always discarded.

I regularly receive attachments from folks on my non-published accounts.
Often, just photos that they are using to illustrate something.  Other
times, large chunks of code or documentation.  Sometimes, EXEs (where
they want to illustrate the behavior of a piece of code and know that I
don't have access to their native RTOS to run a compiled binary for it).
The same applies in reverse.  E.g., if I want to get an appraisal of
the differences in pronunciation for different algorithms, it's easier
to send them a WINDOWS binary and let *them* choose the words to compare.
This lets them also play with the characteristics of the *voice* (which
is different from the *pronunciation*) to accentuate any differences
they perceive -- based on their own hearing artifacts.
Of course, this all gets executed in a sandbox (belts-n-braces).

Sometimes I'll have a look at where a dodgy URL goes but most often it goes nowhere due to my outbound filtering.
 

The phishing protection doesn't rely on filtering messages.
Rather, just not making URLs easy to access (or attachments
easy to open).
>
Folks who have any of my "non-public" email addresses are
treated like you would expect a trusted correspondent to be
treated.  But, traffic on the "public" (published) accounts
is highly censored.