I don't see how you're disagreeing with me. BIMI is a complicated if-then statement. If X, then do Y. It says nothing about doing anything else. I didn't say displaying non-BIMI images was contrary to the spec, just that it was something outside the spec. BIMI's value is not dependent upon MUAs never doing anything outside its spec.
-Tim On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 12:05 PM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > Dnia 12.01.2024 o godz. 11:18:32 Tim Starr via mailop pisze: > > By publishing the BIMI spec. No one's required to follow the spec, but if > > they don't, then they're not doing BIMI, and that's not the fault of the > > spec. > > Does the BIMI spec *require* that *only* BIMI-authenticated messages can > have logos displayed alongside them in the MUA? > > In my understanding no. If it actually states so, then it's far too > restrictive and unacceptable (and this *is* fault of the spec). That's what > im talking about all the time. > > So MUAs that display "other" (non-BIMI !) logos, are doing BIMI *plus* > something else. They are not contrary to the BIMI spec. They are just in > addition doing something that is completely orthogonal to BIMI, but gives > similar visual experience to the user. > > Which actually defeats the purpose of BIMI, as I understand it. > -- > 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
