I have mixed feelings about this.<p>&gt; <i>Not all affected email will necessarily be dangerous.</i><p>To me, it sounds like they&#x27;re saying that <i>most</i> of the &quot;affected email&quot; <i>WILL</i> be dangerous -- just not <i>ALL</i> of it -- and that&#x27;s highly misleading, of course.<p>Overall, though, I think this will be a good thing if it pushes more organizations (&quot;mail senders&quot;) to implement opportunistic encryption for incoming mail and SPF&#x2F;DKIM signing for outgoing mail.<p>That seems to be what they&#x27;re referring to; that is, sending to an MX host that doesn&#x27;t support opportunistic encryption) and&#x2F;or receiving mail that doesn&#x27;t have a valid DKIM signature.  Did anyone else understand this differently?