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 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 URL or domain 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 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.