You seem to be taking a religious position based on your perception of "need." If this feature is un-needed, why did Google and Yahoo do it? They think their users want it, that's why they spent time building this feature into their UIs, and why they keep it there. Among other things, it serves as a visible indicator of email that is both authenticated and passes DMARC. If you also object to authentication and DMARC, then you're making yourself even more of a minority advocate. I do not expect any such boycott to get widespread adoption.
Tim Starr On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:34 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > Dnia 10.01.2024 o godz. 11:32:36 Seth Blank via mailop pisze: > > The hope is that as BIMI gets more widely adopted, the cost (and > > automation) of the logo validation drops. Time will tell. > > > > Of course, for broader adoption, we also need to progress beyond > > trademarks, which have their own cost and timeliness issues. The working > > group is leaning heavily into this, as its our top priority to make BIMI > > more broadly accessible. > > > > This covers our technical intent: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bkl-bimi-overview-00 and > > The document fails to convincingly answer THE one basic question: > > WHY in the hell is such a strange feature needed at all and for whom? > > As the OP has written, the only ones that may be interested in this may be > marketers. Nobody else needs any logos, avatars etc. displayed alongside > the > email headers. There is a reason why the early attempt at this - I'm > talking > about the X-Face header, which you even refer to in this document - never > gained any popularity. Simply, nobody needs this. The fact that Gmail > implemented in its web client putting up some images alongside email > headers > (which, by the way, show anything non-default only if the sender is another > Gmail user and has a profile picture defined in his/her account) shouldn't > be any reference nor guide for designing email applications at all. NOBODY > NEEDS THESE IMAGES. > > Also, I see no feasible way - neither now nor in the future - to use it any > meaningful way in person-to-person communication, which is the topic OP > asked about, and you seem to have ignored it completely in your answer. The > document you are linking to isn't even trying to address this use case! It > speaks all the time about "organizations" or "brands" and their logotypes, > like companies or organizations were the only senders of emails. Or maybe > this is the actual intent? To make individual people only reicipents of > emails, without the ability to send? > > In section 3.3 you even predict that BIMI is about to go the same path > DMARC > went - "DMARC started with limited use to protect heavily phished domains", > and now we have arrived to the point when you almost can't send mail to any > big mail provider without having DMARC properly set up. You predict that > likely the same will happen for BIMI, which means, you won't be able to > send > mail to any of the "big players" if you don't have BIMI set up. Which > *will* > cost money - you are also clear about it. Is the goal to make email a > closed > ecosystem in which only the big players can participate? > > This was a bad idea from the beginning (I would even say, a crazy idea) and > will still be a bad idea no matter how much work and effort you put into > it. > So maybe it's better not to waste that effort at all and direct it towards > something actually useful. > -- > 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 >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
