> > 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 <[email protected]>:
>
> > > > 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
> > > <[email protected] [[email protected]]>:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > [email protected] [[email protected]] [[email protected]
> > > > [[email protected]]]
> > > > --
> > > > "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
> > > > [email protected] [[email protected]] [[email protected]
> > [[email protected]]]
> > > > 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 - [email protected] [[email protected]]
> > Randolf Richardson, CNA - [email protected]
> > [[email protected]]
> > Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
> > Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
> > https://www.inter-corporate.com/ [https://www.inter-corporate.com/]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mailop mailing list
> > [email protected] [[email protected]]
> > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
> > [https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop]
--
Postmaster - [email protected]
Randolf Richardson, CNA - [email protected]
Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
https://www.inter-corporate.com/
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
