3 ms·
> but to the ordinary person it solves a problem they didn’t even knew they had. Or more so, DON'T have. I don't know if I'd qualify for "ordinary person" her
by michaelcampbell 8y ago
> but to the ordinary person it solves a problem they didn’t even knew they had.
Or more so, DON'T have. I don't know if I'd qualify for "ordinary person" here but regardless, of the emails I went through this morning I don't think I can think of ONE that I cared about actually being from the sender it said it was from. There are very few that matter that much.
- marcosdumay 8y agoIf your bank is any good, it doesn't send you emails about your account activity or problems. Yet, it could, if everybody was signing their emails.
- jhasse 8y agoIt already could using DKIM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail
- coldacid 8y agoThis has already been touched on in the article and the comments. DKIM isn't any good when it tells you that the email from fraudulent mybankk.com is verified just because the phishers were clever enough to set up DKIM on their site.
- jhasse 8y agoThat's true. I guess we need something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Validation_Certificate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Validation_Certificat... for email then. I'm not sure how PGP would help though, as the user also has to check, if the email from his bank was signed with the correct key. Checking the exact domain name is something he can already do and I guess is also easier to understand.
- MagicPropmaker 8y agoMy bank and broker send an email or text telling me to log in and check the "secure email" system on the bank's site.