[antonvs]

> you are defying a measure that was taken by management to try to make the company safer.

> are you 100% free to cheat on cyber security measures?

Why do you think that implementing an email filter like that is "defying a measure" or "cheating"? What value do you think there would be in individually, manually, reviewing each such email, if you've already identified the pattern they all follow and their purpose? You're essentially arguing for wilful inefficiency, which is "cheating" the organization out of useful labor.

The other reply to you may have been less than perfectly polite, but they certainly had a point.

[idiotsecant]

Are you being willfully obtuse? Suppose that management wanted to see if you could visually identify faulty parts on an assembly line - wrong finish, dirty, etc - , and that all deliberately faulty test parts had a red sticker on the bottom. If you just flipped every part over until you found red stickers would you be equally annoying refusing to identify why what you did you as wrong and stupid? The goal wasn't reading email headers.

[teekert]

Come on, certainly the "spirit" of the "training" is to learn to disseminate phishing emails from real ones using subtle ques. Not to learn how to write an email filter.

Nowhere am I saying that I agree with the chosen methods, especially not the part that sounds like punishment. But there are better ways to deal with the disagreement than suggested here.