> I hope that goes well for you (especially if you're planning to
> compete with the big free webmail providers).
Thanks, it's a saturated market for sure! Hoping I can still differentiate
myself is some key areas, like many of you I imagine :)
Groetjes,
Louis
Op zaterdag 13 januari 2024 om
> 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,
> > 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
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
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
> Then the recipient can choose to use a MUA that supports avatars (of course,
> there should always be the possibility to turn them off in configuration -
> which also solves the issue of tracking; if someone doesn't want to be
> tracked, he/she can turn the avatar support off in options, and
> 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
Hey all,
> I might have missed something, but wouldn't that be a phisher's wet dream?
It depends on the implementation really. A lot of parallels can be drawn to
things email clients and other platforms have been doing for years. Email
clients have already been using Gravatar, and on almost
They can already rip people off, w/out BIMI. BIMI limits their ability to
do so in two ways:
1) It raises the cost, because BIMI setup costs more.
2) It makes it harder for scammers to impersonate trusted brands.
-Tim
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 12:58 PM Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop <
Randolf Richardson, Postmaster via mailop skrev den 2024-01-11 19:52:
I might have missed something, but wouldn't that be a phisher's wet
dream?
Indeed, and because the BIMI record references a URI to load the
logo from, so the scammers (spammers, phishers, malware/virus
distributors,
> I might have missed something, but wouldn't that be a phisher's wet dream?
Indeed, and because the BIMI record references a URI to load the
logo from, so the scammers (spammers, phishers, malware/virus
distributors, etc.) could simply specify a different logo file with a
recognized
You seem to be taking a religious position based on your perception of
"need." If this feature is un-needed, why did Google and Yahoo do it? They
think their users want it, that's why they spent time building this feature
into their UIs, and why they keep it there. Among other things, it serves
as
Dnia 11.01.2024 o godz. 14:34:16 Laurent S. via mailop pisze:
> The trademark verification is only for those that pay for it. Nothing
> forbids a MUA from displaying an unverified BIMI. Most are luckily not
> doing it (yet), I just want to warn that if this becomes common, it will
> be abused
On 2024-01-10 at 20:38 +, Gellner, Oliver wrote:
> > Its also may be yet another reader-engagement tracker. Why do those
> > things always have to be out of band.
>
> Well, there’s no automated way to connect a logo to a domain. The
> BIMI group has decided to build upon the work of trademark
Greetings.
What I believe will happen is most non-big mail client apps will support
BIMI if they support avatars, otherwise, they won't, cause the arguments
on the receiver side are the same for both features.
I don't buy the "promoting authentication" argument. There would be a
marginal
o: "mailop"
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:34:16 AM
Subject: Re: [mailop] BIMI boycott? Lookup tool, why we publish BIMI anyway,
and intellectual property law considerations
On 11.01.24 14:59, Udeme via mailop wrote:
> There’s a trademark ownership vetting item that’s part of BIMI imp
On 11.01.24 14:59, Udeme via mailop wrote:
> There’s a trademark ownership vetting item that’s part of BIMI implementation.
> Not just *anyone* can get past that. #wink
>
The trademark verification is only for those that pay for it. Nothing
forbids a MUA from displaying an unverified BIMI. Most
There’s a trademark ownership vetting item that’s part of BIMI
implementation. Not just *anyone* can get past that. #wink
-Udeme
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:36 AM Laurent S. via mailop
wrote:
> I might have missed something, but wouldn't that be a phisher's wet dream?
>
> Most spammers know very
Dnia 10.01.2024 o godz. 22:57:21 Louis Laureys via mailop pisze:
> 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 someone, *as a recipient*, likes having avatars next to email, I
On 10/01/2024 19:18, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
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.
That is certainly an overly bold claim. For a lot of people it makes
I might have missed something, but wouldn't that be a phisher's wet dream?
Most spammers know very well how to do a mail with valid DMARC. So, now
they only need to send a valid mail from any throw away cheap domain and
in their BIMI add the logo of paypal?
I understand it's not great to have
> > We decided to keep this because I read that some webmail clients are
> > planning to support BIMI without checking for certificates, or,
> > perhaps, also displaying a little lock icon in the corner of the
> > sender's BIMI-style logo image where certification is verified.
>
> This is exactly
> > 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
It appears that Andrew C Aitchison via mailop said:
>X-Face was too far ahead of its time. Enough of the market did not have
>the bandwidth to make it practical, and digitisers/cameras were not
>readily available.
It was, and it also predated phishing. All of the complication of BIMI
comes from
+1
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 6:14 PM Louis Laureys via mailop
wrote:
> We decided to keep this because I read that some webmail clients are
> planning to support BIMI without checking for certificates, or,
> perhaps, also displaying a little lock icon in the corner of the
> sender's BIMI-style
> We decided to keep this because I read that some webmail clients are
> planning to support BIMI without checking for certificates, or,
> perhaps, also displaying a little lock icon in the corner of the
> sender's BIMI-style logo image where certification is verified.
This is exactly what I have
> 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
Since DMARC is now required by Google and Yahoo for bulk sending, it kind
of makes BIMI not as needed. I'm still not sure what BIMI solves that
enforcing authentication doesn't.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 3:44 PM Gellner, Oliver via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> > On 10.01.2024 at 17:21
We looked into it and publish our own default BIMI record even
though we didn't pay the enormous amount money required to one of two
Certificate Authorities.
If anyone is curious to see what the record looks, use this command:
dig txt
> On 10.01.2024 at 17:21 Olga Fischer via mailop wrote:
>
> Many bigger mailers are blogging about BIMI.
> As far as I see its exclusively for brands.
> It has 2 big barriers for entry:
> - Expensive bespoke cert oids
> - Registered trademark logos
>
> As from my perspective of independent
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
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
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024, Olga Fischer via mailop wrote:
Hi mailops,
I am new here because I want to collect some opinion.
Many bigger mailers are blogging about BIMI.
As far as I see its exclusively for brands.
It has 2 big barriers for entry:
- Expensive bespoke cert oids
- Registered trademark
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
It's not a money grabbing scheme. Validation of the logo requires human
effort today, so there's a real cost involved. It's also relatively new, so
at its most expensive.
The hope is that as BIMI gets more widely adopted, the cost (and
automation) of the logo validation drops. Time will tell.
Of
Hi mailops,
I am new here because I want to collect some opinion.
Many bigger mailers are blogging about BIMI.
As far as I see its exclusively for brands.
It has 2 big barriers for entry:
- Expensive bespoke cert oids
- Registered trademark logos
As from my perspective of independent mailing
35 matches
Mail list logo
