On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 5:58 PM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
[snip]
Dnia 12.01.2024 o godz. 14:04:59 Tim Starr via mailop pisze:
> > BIMI's value is not dependent upon MUAs
> > never doing anything outside its spec.
>
> Yes, it is. Because it depends on the condition that the logo is
> [sNip]
> > Of course, I feel compelled to point out that I'm doing the same
> > > thing right now as the BIMI Group is doing (no PEM defined in the
> > > "a=" parameter), and I think this is fine and that it's perfectly
> > > okay for the BIMI Group to do it this way too.
> >
> > A
[sNip]
> Of course, I feel compelled to point out that I'm doing the same
> > thing right now as the BIMI Group is doing (no PEM defined in the
> > "a=" parameter), and I think this is fine and that it's perfectly
> > okay for the BIMI Group to do it this way too.
>
> A self-asserted logo
> So, if a MUA [...] displays besides verified BIMI logos also other logos,
> obtained by different method from a different source (for example Gmail
> profile pictures as it is today), we have exactly this case - the presence
> or absence of logo says nothing to the user with respect to whether
On Jan 12, 2024, at 3:52 PM, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> As I have shown above, for BIMI to be useful, it *has* to be the *only*
> specification for having such logos appear, and no other options could be
> possible.
Yes, this is exactly right.
If an MUA displays a "sender's logo" like
Dnia 12.01.2024 o godz. 13:23:07 Todd Herr via mailop pisze:
> There is no such thing as "BIMI-authenticated". BIMI isn't authentication,
> and doesn't claim to be. I quote from the Abstract of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-brand-indicators-for-message-identification
>
> BIMI
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
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 12:30 PM Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> As an aside, I find it interesting that the BIMI Group doesn't
> have
> a Verified Mark (no PEM specified in the "a=" parameter):
>
>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:03 PM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
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.
>
>
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
As an aside, I find it interesting that the BIMI Group doesn't have
a Verified Mark (no PEM specified in the "a=" parameter):
https://bimigroup.org/bimi-generator/
Just type "bimigroup.org" in that form and see the results, which
show their logo followed by this
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.
-Tim
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:31 PM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
> Dnia 11.01.2024 o godz. 17:02:01 Tim Starr via mailop pisze:
> > The
Hi Tim
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 05:02:01PM -0600, Tim Starr via mailop wrote:
> The image has to be specified in the DNS, and it has to be certified w/ a
> VMC. The VMC certification process includes checking if it's trademarked.
That's why the process started with: get a trademark. Also such a
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:14 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop
wrote:
> Attempting to legally prevent MUA developers from displaying logos
> competing with BIMI's
> approved logos, likewise.
>
Nobody is doing or expecting this.
___
mailop mailing list
On 1/11/24 15:27, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
As I wrote previously, the only method to prevent this is a (totally
unrealistic) *legal prohibition* for MUA developers to display any other
images than certified BIMI logos. Not possible.
Wasn't there an idea similar to BIMI a while back
Dnia 11.01.2024 o godz. 17:02:01 Tim Starr via mailop pisze:
> The image has to be specified in the DNS, and it has to be certified w/ a
> VMC. The VMC certification process includes checking if it's trademarked.
> So, in order for a trusted brand's BIMI logo to get spoofed, the email
> would have
The image has to be specified in the DNS, and it has to be certified w/ a
VMC. The VMC certification process includes checking if it's trademarked.
So, in order for a trusted brand's BIMI logo to get spoofed, the email
would have to be DMARC-authenticated and the logo specified in the DNS
would be
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 01:45:19PM -0600, Tim Starr via mailop wrote:
> To elaborate on Marcel's answer, so he doesn't have to waste time
> explaining it all over again, the "different logo" won't be displayed by
> the mailbox providers, because it's not the authenticated one.
What prohibits them
> To elaborate on Marcel's answer, so he doesn't have to waste time
> explaining it all over again, the "different logo" won't be displayed by
> the mailbox providers, because it's not the authenticated one.
You're right -- I was in error on that because I forgot about that
point.
To elaborate on Marcel's answer, so he doesn't have to waste time
explaining it all over again, the "different logo" won't be displayed by
the mailbox providers, because it's not the authenticated one.
-Tim
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 1:11 PM Marcel Becker via mailop
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:58AM Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop <
> mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > They could
> > easily afford set up a company, get a Trademark, and then use a
> > different logo image when sending their junk eMails.
> >
>
> No, that's not how VMCs and BIMI
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:58 AM Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> They could
> easily afford set up a company, get a Trademark, and then use a
> different logo image when sending their junk eMails.
>
No, that's not how VMCs and BIMI set ups at
22 matches
Mail list logo
