[ColonelBlimp]

>Of course the email is for suckers as it has more than enough clues about being scam but I guess some poor souls might actually fall for it.

I wonder whether that type of comment is in line with Hacker News Guidelines.

In any case, blaming or demeaning scam victims (what you call "suckers" and "poor souls") only adds to the psychological damage that those people experience. There are plenty of studies, recommendations and campaigns on this issue. For example, the UK's Financial Conduct Authority has a whole section in their website https://www.fca.org.uk/scamsmart and have been running TV ads to help protect pensioners.

The clues in the Metamask and DHL phising emails may have been obvious to you and many other Hacker News readers. I received them and quickly noticed they were phising messags. However, having the skills to spot (and stop) this type of messages doesn't mean we are always able to do it. A recent blog post by Kev Quirk, an infosec expert, is a case in point https://kevquirk.com/i-was-nearly-phished/

[FpUser]

>"In any case, blaming or demeaning scam victims..."

The demeaning in this particular case goes for the authors of the scam. The clues are in plain sight. They did not bother to hide it at all. I am not blaming victims.