> > I find that helpful too. > > Good to hear I'm not alone haha > > > Will your eMail client have a free edition option? > > Afraid not. Will be starting an email host in the future and this will be the > webmail + mobile apps, it would access the host though an api so won't be > compatible with other hosts (but of course my host does support imap). I'm > currently its only user (this email is written in it), and there's no public > record of it beyond what you're reading now. Once I get my act together and > finally start this thing anyone here would of course be welcome to a free > account ;)
I hope that goes well for you (especially if you're planning to compete with the big free webmail providers). Thanks for the clarification. > > If you support BIMI with and without the "a=" parameter containing a > > certificate, that would be fantastic. (You could always indicate > > with a golden lock in the corner of BIMI logos when they do have > > valid certificates specified with the "a=" parameter.) > > That's the plan! Sorry to disappoint with the whole being an unreleased > proprietary email client part. Excellent, and no worries about the proprietary part -- I asked because I didn't know what the intended outcome is. > Groetjes, > Louis > > > Op donderdag 11 januari 2024 om 10:10, schreef Randolf Richardson, Postmaster > via mailop <mailop@mailop.org>: > > > > > Simply, nobody needs this. > > > > > > I've been building an email client and actually do fetch avatars and logos > > to be > > > displayed next to emails. I find it helps me visually identify emails > > easier, > > > it's a lot less taxing on the brain than reading sender names or > > > addresses. > > Of > > > course in my case I'm also scraping gravatar and favicons, so it doesn't > > have > > > much to do with BIMI. > > > > I find that helpful too. > > > > Will your eMail client have a free edition option? If so, please do > > share a link to it here (or eMail me directly) because I'd be happy > > to consider including it in the list of eMail client software options > > that we provide to our users (and also include it in the "Resources" > > section of the Canadian Lumber Cartel web site). > > > > (On PCs, most of our users are either using OutLook, Thunderbird, or > > our webmail option. A few are using other software, including > > Sylpheed, Pegasus Mail, and some others I don't recall the names of.) > > > > > 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 you support BIMI with and without the "a=" parameter containing a > > certificate, that would be fantastic. (You could always indicate > > with a golden lock in the corner of BIMI logos when they do have > > valid certificates specified with the "a=" parameter.) > > > > > Groetjes, > > > Louis > > > > > > > > > Op woensdag 10 januari 2024 om 18:18, schreef Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop > > > <mailop@mailop.org [mailop@mailop.org]>: > > > > > > > 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 > > [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bkl-bimi-overview-00] > > > > [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bkl-bimi-overview-00 > > [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 [r...@rafa.eu.org] [r...@rafa.eu.org > > > > [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 [mailop@mailop.org] [mailop@mailop.org > > [mailop@mailop.org]] > > > > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > > [https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop] > > > > [https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > > [https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop]] > > > > -- > > Postmaster - postmas...@inter-corporate.com [postmas...@inter-corporate.com] > > Randolf Richardson, CNA - rand...@inter-corporate.com > > [rand...@inter-corporate.com] > > Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc. > > Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada > > https://www.inter-corporate.com/ [https://www.inter-corporate.com/] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mailop mailing list > > mailop@mailop.org [mailop@mailop.org] > > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > > [https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop] -- Postmaster - postmas...@inter-corporate.com Randolf Richardson, CNA - rand...@inter-corporate.com Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada https://www.inter-corporate.com/ _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop