Dnia 10.01.2024 o godz. 22:57:21 Louis Laureys via mailop pisze: > Just wanted to add that I actually like it for visual clarity. Though I would > have liked a more general avatar implementation not geared towards businesses.
If someone, *as a recipient*, likes having avatars next to email, I have nothing against it - but *only if it's totally optional and decided upon by recipient* (and by recipient, I mean the individual person and not the organization that runs the receiving mail server). Then the recipient can choose to use a MUA that supports avatars (of course, there should always be the possibility to turn them off in configuration - which also solves the issue of tracking; if someone doesn't want to be tracked, he/she can turn the avatar support off in options, and their MUA won't fetch any avatar images from any website). But what would be actually desirable, is exactly what you wrote - an implementation *not geared towards businesses*. BIMI is nothing like this, as John clearly explained below it *is and always will be* geared towards businesses. And for me BIMI looks more like push from the *senders* (and in particular, big marketing senders) on people to use the avatars (and use them only in a particular way dictated by big businesses), rather than a response to an *actual need* from *recipients* to use them. Dnia 10.01.2024 o godz. 21:21:16 John Levine via mailop pisze: > While it would be nice to make BIMI available to small organizations > without costing a lot of money, the question "is entity A allowed to > show logo X" is very hard even for people, and not amenable to > authomation. In a few cases where the entity has already paid to put > the logo in a trademark database it's easier but that sure doesn't > scale. There is a very real danger (and this is even predicted in the document linked in the previous email) that adoption of BIMI by big mail providers will serve as another "antispam" measure; messages having verified BIMI mark would be treated by ISPs as more "trustworthy" and "reputable" than the messages that don't. This would clearly lead to dividing email service in two categories: "first class" would be an email from businesses that are big and rich enough that they can afford having their email BIMI certified, which would give them a kind of "guarantee" for their emails to be delivered to all the big ISPs - and a "second class" consisiting of all the other senders, who lack BIMI verification, and thus can only hope to have luck that their email gets through the filters (which will happen gradually less and less often). As it has happened with DMARC, which also in the beginning - as the document states - was purely optional and meant only for specific, often-phished domains. This is a very bad perspective, and BIMI is in my opinion a road straight to this direction. -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub." _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
