[ Wearing an MTA developer's hat. ]
I see that an MTA is supposed to remove existing Authentication-Results
and BIMI-Indicator headers, and that generally an MUA may use these
headers if present.
I presume that most MTAs only add these headers on delivery, but if a
non-compliant MTA receive
> 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 th
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 th
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 permi
On 10.01.2024 at 21:59 Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop wrote:
> What's missing from BIMI in its current form? The option for mail server
> oparators to use the same TLS certificates that we're already using for our
> mail servers (and web servers, and FTP servers, etc.).
A server cer
On 11.01.2024 at 17:18 Ángel via mailop wrote:
> On 2024-01-10 at 20:38 +, Gellner, Oliver wrote:
>> Either way, BIMI is not suitable for reader tracking as you cannot
>> provide different logo URIs for each recipient.
> Sorry, but it would be possible:
>> Domain Owners can specify which othe
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
nev
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):
>
> https://bimigroup.org/bimi-generato
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.
>
> D
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 im
12 matches
Mail list logo
