"the fact that Google's own legitimate emails are flagged as phishing by their own filters is pretty telling about the reliability of the whole thing"
It detects blacklisted URLs in emails and sends warnings, retroactively given that sites are caught some indeterminate time after they might have been communicated (flagging if you have interacted with the email and thus might have been compromised). It seems like it was perfectly reliable.
That isn't damning at all, and it should embarrass you that you cited that, seemingly confused about the reason.
"Im not sure exactly what you are disputing"
I'm saying that we have zero reason to believe you (but reasons to not believe you given that you're redacting things that don't need to be redacted). People caught in the nets of things like this -- through their malice, carelessness, incompetence, etc -- always claim innocence.
If Google flagging its own e-mails is your idea of a perfectly reliable phishing detection system, I don't think we are going to find much common ground.
For what it's worth, it's all true :) Good luck to you.
Sure it is. Keep on harping about a warning system working perfectly (because, again, you clearly fail to understand it)...it makes a really good case for your screed.
It detects blacklisted URLs in emails and sends warnings, retroactively given that sites are caught some indeterminate time after they might have been communicated (flagging if you have interacted with the email and thus might have been compromised). It seems like it was perfectly reliable.
That isn't damning at all, and it should embarrass you that you cited that, seemingly confused about the reason.
"Im not sure exactly what you are disputing"
I'm saying that we have zero reason to believe you (but reasons to not believe you given that you're redacting things that don't need to be redacted). People caught in the nets of things like this -- through their malice, carelessness, incompetence, etc -- always claim innocence.