they're on the right track but

(1) it should be RED

(2) it should be FULL SCREEN

(3) probably 1 adult human in 500 can understand language that complex. (1 in 2000 in the U.S.!)

there's just no way anyone's going to read - far less bother with or let it affect them - such a long, confusing novel-length meandering bit of chat.

It should say ... dont forget, this is red and full screen ..

PHISHING
ATTACK
PREVENTED !!!!

And that's it.

*of course* it should just NOT let you go there. There should not be an "option to go there!" Newsflash: duh.

Ok, sure, in the coming ten years, of the 314,245,897,500,000,000 times that the alert will come up, OK, we can estimate that let's say 4 times ... no, let's say 5 times, for some unbelievably staggeringly bizarre reason, the user will in fact have wanted to go to the URL.

{Aside -- naturally on those 5 occasions, it would have been a German internet engineer who for some amazing reason needed the "go to the URL" option. But the other 314,245,897,499,999,995 occasions....uh, no.}

Thus, two seconds thinking on the problem shows that it is UTTERLY, STUPENDOUSLY, INCREDIBLY IDIOTIC to include a "yah, go there anyway, yuk!" option.

Who's desigining this stuff, software engineers? Oh, yeah, that's right....

> Thus, two seconds thinking on the problem shows that it
> is UTTERLY, STUPENDOUSLY, INCREDIBLY IDIOTIC to include > a "yah, go there anyway, yuk!" option.
>
> Who's desigining this stuff, software engineers? Oh,
> yeah, that's right....

In defense of software engineers, recall that stuff whose UI is designed by experts in customer requirements has not yet even implemented phishing detectors.

JPM must be the same guy who decided Outlook should block "EXE" attachments, and not bother to offer an override option. After all, how many people really want to send executable files attached to mail messages?