Because you’re selecting with people who lack experience with scam/critical thinking to figure out they’re scams.
Comment on What is the point of the Nicole spam?
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days agoIf you can spot it, you aren’t the mark.
This doesn’t make any sense to me.
Why would you deliberately make your bait less appealing to filter out the fish that might wriggle off the hook before you land them?
The typo’s are in order to evade bayesian spam filters which get suspicious about certain words.
The common formats are used because those are the ones that work.
CTDummy@lemm.ee 2 days ago
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
I understood you the first time. My point is, it’s nonsensical.
If you’re sending emails to potential victims you want as many responses as you can get.
It’s an absurdity to suggest that typing errors would intelligently select for people more likely to be scammed.
CTDummy@lemm.ee 2 days ago
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.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Oh boy. Sure ok you must know everything about security and spam and scammers because you “work in tech”. Honestly, telling people that doesn’t make you sound any more credible.
Did you honestly just google “scammer typos” so you could provide me with an expert source?
You’re making a very simple assertion - that typos weed out potential victims who are gullible enough to fall for a nigerian prince scam with no typos, but not gullible enough to follow through to actually paying the scammer.
It’s a preposterous claim with absolutely no evidence supporting it. Any idiot can see it doesn’t withstand a moment’s thought.
On the other hand, it’s demonstrably true that typos can help to evade bayesian filters.
The actual situation, which both you and mr security blog guy have gravely misunderstood, 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.
Er go, the type of people who become victims are not likely to be discouraged by typos.
That’s not the same as including typos in order to discourage people who are not good victims.
cynar@lemmy.world 2 days ago
The initial fishing is a low effort, wide net. What follows actually takes the investment of man hours and/or other resources. They would rather get 1 catch they can take all the way, than 500 where 495 will figure it out later and bail.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Sure but there’s no evidence that the typos effectively weed out the ones they don’t want.
cynar@lemmy.world 2 days ago
No evidence that we have. The spammers obviously think it’s worth doing however, and they are the ones that would have the statistics.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
All the evidence we do have demonstrates that the typos evade Bayesian filters and improve deliverability. This is demonstrably true.
When you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras.