Reading comprehension fail



  • Lately we've been getting a rash of scam emails claiming to be from a Three Letter Bureau. Several of the users have asked about them, so our network admin sent an example with instructions to ignore and delete them. I found the following in my inbox this morning:

    FW: TLB case ID 12345
    From: Sysadmin
    To: Buffalo

    WTF!?

     

    From: VP of something
    To: Sysadmin
    Subject: RE: TLB case ID 12345

    I could not open the complaint report.

    Some Noob
    Vice President of Something

    From: Sysadmin
    To: staff
    Subject: FW: TLB case ID 12345

    This is a new scam email that is going around. Please just delete this email

    Thanks,
    Sysadmin

    From: TLB [mailto:support(at)tlb.org]
    To: (super gullible VIP noob who still had the sense to ask us about it)
    Subject: TLB case ID 12345

    Good afternoon,

    Here with the Three Letter Bureau we would like to inform you that we have received a complaint (ID 12345) from one of your customers with respect to their dealership with you.

    Please open the [broken link to random shady scam site.html]COMPLAINT REPORT[link] below to obtain the details on this case and inform us about your opinion as soon as possible.

    Kind regards,

    Person who does not exist,

    Dispute counselor
    Three Letter Bureau

    _______________________________

    I wonder if it's difficult being a vice president without being able to read.



  •  That's ... ouch. Run while you can.



  • Ahh, must have been VP of Human Resources...  They're not very bright, though they can organize a company BBQ like a baws.



  • @C-Octothorpe said:

    Ahh, must have been VP of Human Resources...  They're not very bright, though they can organize a company BBQ like a baws.

    Not necessarily. I interned one summer at a company whose HR person outsourced the company BBQ to some company called "Picnics Plus." I'm not sure whether the bigger WTF was that they used a contractor to do the company BBQ or that such a contracting company actually exists.

    It was a sad, sad day for humanity.



  • @corgimonster said:

    I interned one summer at a company whose HR person outsourced the company BBQ to some company called "Picnics Plus." I'm not sure whether the bigger WTF was that they used a contractor to do the company BBQ or that such a contracting company actually exists.

    Seriously, catering companies, restaurants, grocery stores, they're all TRWTF. You should be hunting and cooking your own damn food!



  • @boomzilla said:

    You should be hunting and cooking your own damn food!

     

    Humans are tasty according to Morbo



  • And this is why at my current company last year they started sending out fake scam and phishing emails out randomly to random employees every so often.  If you click the link it takes you to a company page which explains that you are an idiot and have endangered the company, what signs there was that the email was fake, and says what you should have done.  Supposively it will inform your manager of your failure, but I have no confirmation on that.  They even did a good job with the fake emails to make them look legit.



  •  FYI for those confused by "customers":  I've gotten several of these (at an old address that never gets anything but spam any more) and the bureau in question is not a government agency, it's the Better Business Bureau.

     



  • @Anketam said:

    And this is why at my current company last year they started sending out fake scam and phishing emails out randomly to random employees every so often.
    This sounds completely familiar. Wonder if we work for the same company.

    I'm always amazed at how many people actually follow the embedded links.



  • @Anketam said:

    did a good job with the fake emails to make them look legit
    I heard you like fake emails, so I made your legit emails look fake so they look like legit fake emails.

    Wait, what?



  • @Anketam said:

    And this is why at my current company last year they started sending out fake scam and phishing emails out randomly to random employees every so often.  If you click the link it takes you to a company page which explains that you are an idiot and have endangered the company, what signs there was that the email was fake, and says what you should have done.  Supposively it will inform your manager of your failure, but I have no confirmation on that.  They even did a good job with the fake emails to make them look legit.

    There's a fine line between genius and pants-shitting WTF. It makes sense to train users to avoid scams, but at the same time it sounds like the way it's being done will make users ignore legit emails out of fear. TRWTF is that the email standards are so fucking security impaired, even in 2012.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    TRWTF is that the email standards are so fucking security impaired, even in 2012.
     

    That is because email was designed in the Seventies by dope-smoking peace-loving Vietnam-war-protesting smelly hippies.

    OK, I am exaggerating, but not by much. Email, like a lot of the Internet, was designed on the honour system.

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    There's a fine line between genius and pants-shitting WTF. It makes sense to train users to avoid scams, but at the same time it sounds like the way it's being done will make users ignore legit emails out of fear. TRWTF is that the email standards are so fucking security impaired, even in 2012.
    I would love to see people to have -some- fear of email, right now most people are lemmings around it.  As for ignoring legit emails, my rule of thumb: Ignore any email claiming importance.  If it is actually important then the sender will follow up on it (and quite frequently not by email).  If they do not follow up then it was not actually important and I just saved myself from wasting my time.  Atleast half of the 'important' emails that ask me to evaluate how difficult it will be to add a [stupid] feature die without me typing a single reason as to why it is a bad idea.



  • @Anketam said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    There's a fine line between genius and pants-shitting WTF. It makes sense to train users to avoid scams, but at the same time it sounds like the way it's being done will make users ignore legit emails out of fear. TRWTF is that the email standards are so fucking security impaired, even in 2012.
    I would love to see people to have -some- fear of email, right now most people are lemmings around it.  As for ignoring legit emails, my rule of thumb: Ignore any email claiming importance.  If it is actually important then the sender will follow up on it (and quite frequently not by email).  If they do not follow up then it was not actually important and I just saved myself from wasting my time.  Atleast half of the 'important' emails that ask me to evaluate how difficult it will be to add a [stupid] feature die without me typing a single reason as to why it is a bad idea.

    So, basically, why do you use email in the first place?



  • @havokk said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    TRWTF is that the email standards are so fucking security impaired, even in 2012.
     

    That is because email was designed in the Seventies by dope-smoking peace-loving Vietnam-war-protesting smelly hippies.

    OK, I am exaggerating, but not by much. Email, like a lot of the Internet, was designed on the honour system.

     

    I'm aware of why the original email specs were security impaired. What I don't understand is why it persists.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    So, basically, why do you use email in the first place?

    Sounds like he treats it as a write only application, just like all of the people who send him stuff. It's win-win!



  • @havokk said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    TRWTF is that the email standards are so fucking security impaired, even in 2012.
     

    That is because email was designed in the Seventies by dope-smoking peace-loving Vietnam-war-protesting smelly hippies.

    OK, I am exaggerating, but not by much. Email, like a lot of the Internet, was designed on the honour system.

     

    Are you kidding me? The entire Internet is completely secure. Non-root users cannot bind to ports < 1024 so just don't go higher than that.



  • @spamcourt said:

    @havokk said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    TRWTF is that the email standards are so fucking security impaired, even in 2012.
     

    That is because email was designed in the Seventies by dope-smoking peace-loving Vietnam-war-protesting smelly hippies.

    OK, I am exaggerating, but not by much. Email, like a lot of the Internet, was designed on the honour system.

     

    Are you kidding me? The entire Internet is completely secure. Non-root users cannot bind to ports < 1024 so just don't go higher than that.

    And Certificate Authorities provide seamless, end-to-end integrity and authenticity.



  • Why use email? I wouldn't if I had a proper alternative that is embedded in every system, tool or process around the globe. But I don't have that :( Same with the web. Why are we building dynamic and interactive applications based around a technology that was designed to fetch static documents?

    Why do people go to effing McDonalds when the quaint little restaurant around the corner delivers higher quality food that tastes 10 times better for only a slightly higher price? Why...Oh, I digress.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I'm aware of why the original email specs were security impaired. What I don't understand is why it persists.
    Because it's the only thing that nearly everybody has, and if you wanted to displace it with something better, you have a chicken-and-egg problem.



  • @erikal said:

    Why...Oh, I digress.
     

    Because human beings are not smart enough. Period.



  • "Reading comprehension fail"

    Shouldn't that be "Reading comprehension fails" or "Reading comprehension failure"?

    I swear, it's getting more and more difficult each day to read English.



  • @dhromed said:

    @erikal said:

    Why...Oh, I digress.
     

    Because human beings are not smart. Period.

    FTFY



  • "Supposively"?

     



  • @SilentRunner said:

    "Reading comprehension fail"

    Shouldn't that be "Reading comprehension fails" or "Reading comprehension failure"?

    I swear, it's getting more and more difficult each day to read English.

    Says the user whose signature changes tenses halfway through :P  Yes, "failure" would have been more grammatically correct, but "fail" I think conveys the completeness of the failing.



  • @rudraigh said:

    "Supposively"?

     

     

    Don't play dumb.  You know he meant "supposably".

     



  • @erikal said:

    Why use email? I wouldn't if I had a proper alternative that is embedded in every system, tool or process around the globe. But I don't have that :( Same with the web. Why are we building dynamic and interactive applications based around a technology that was designed to fetch static documents?

    Well, yeah, I'm bemoaning the state of affairs the same as you.

    @erikal said:

    Why do people go to effing McDonalds when the quaint little restaurant around the corner delivers higher quality food that tastes 10 times better for only a slightly higher price? Why...Oh, I digress.

    Oh come off it. Most small restaurants taste equal to or worse than McDonald's. I hardly think McD's is great (there's hardly anything I can eat there anyway) but it's better than a lot of places.



  • @Buffalo said:

    @SilentRunner said:

    "Reading comprehension fail"

    Shouldn't that be "Reading comprehension fails" or "Reading comprehension failure"?

    I swear, it's getting more and more difficult each day to read English.

    Says the user whose signature changes tenses halfway through :P  Yes, "failure" would have been more grammatically correct, but "fail" I think conveys the completeness of the failing.


    Look at his username. Now listen to this. Now back at his username. Now back to the song. Sadly, the lyrics aren't grammatically proper. And they're in his signature.



  • @bannedfromcoding said:

    @Buffalo said:

    @SilentRunner said:

    "Reading comprehension fail"

    Shouldn't that be "Reading comprehension fails" or "Reading comprehension failure"?

    I swear, it's getting more and more difficult each day to read English.

    Says the user whose signature changes tenses halfway through :P  Yes, "failure" would have been more grammatically correct, but "fail" I think conveys the completeness of the failing.


    Look at his username. Now listen to this. Now back at his username. Now back to the song. Sadly, the lyrics aren't grammatically proper. And they're in his signature.

    Man, that was one of John Candy's best movies!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.