Re: Anti-Phishing with digital watermarking

["Razi Shaban" <razishaban () gmail com>]

> I'd say it's closer to 100% unreliable than to 100% reliable.

Prove it.

> But even
> if it isn't, how do you calculate the chances? You just have too many
> variables.

You don't need chances, you just need to know that the majority of
people on the internet have no clue what they're doing. This is true.
Thus, it is likely that the script will be run.


> You noticed the word "security" in this mailinglist's name? What makes
> you think a measure of questionable reliability could possibly count as
> a security measure?

If you read the original post, you would notice that the goal here is
to "be alerted" when a phishing attack occurs. I will not follow you
on your tangent.

--
Razi