“Appointment” as professor at Harvard was an elaborate phishing attack
TLDR: *It's not very useful to have an interpretation by a person who mis-interpreted a situation, without concrete real-world examples of what they actually interpreted: screenshots of conversations & email addresses/other contact info (at least domains such as @something.edu) , so I can at least say "Yeah, this was obviously phishing" or "wow, this phisher was really incognito".*I'm interested in seeing the email address domain of the person who phished this author.  And other specific details about the conversation-- such as screenshots and other evidence.- "what appeared to be an official Harvard email ID" Did the phisher have a @harvard.edu sort of email address or not?  I don't care about "what appeared to be" (i.e. insinuating the author interpreted the account to be official.)  I want to know what the actual domain of the email address was -- not that in the author's opinion it seemed to not be fake.- I know some professors have their own websites & use their own custom domains-- still, I'd see this as phishy unless it specifically came from a @harvard.edu account. And even then, the phisher could still have somehow accessed an available account.  But, then I'd simply try to find their faculty page.  Also, I would expect other people or gorup-email-accounts in HR to be CCed on the emails, not just some individual contacting me.To be honest, I am surprised this author does not provide concrete details.  She tells how things happened, and what steps she took. But provides no screenshots of her conversations, no specific details about the online personas of the phisher.