IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bimi] MUA Evaluation of BIMI

Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> Tue, 15 March 2022 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@highwayman.com>
X-Original-To: bimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4443A15AF for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 18:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.366
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74FwfNFGLe6s for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 18:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.highwayman.com (mail.highwayman.com [82.69.6.249]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7440A3A0CB3 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 18:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:24288 helo=happyday.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by mail.highwayman.com with esmtp (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from <richard@highwayman.com>) id 1nTvmg-0004sw-E2 for bimi@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 01:15:34 +0000
Message-ID: <YUD1D7RM62LiFA45@highwayman.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:34:20 +0000
To: "bimi@ietf.org" <bimi@ietf.org>
From: Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com>
References: <7639D8E5-B8CA-48E6-B6F3-63BA091C3AC5@contoso.com> <VI1PR01MB7053B6AF625A5FFB2222F795C70F9@VI1PR01MB7053.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <82f4775e-faab-b081-9502-523bd056e9e3@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <82f4775e-faab-b081-9502-523bd056e9e3@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.03 M <zY$$+33$77$$pPKL26Z+devsZR>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bimi/2jAVhkSh6Oi3MXCiWISAjqL1hxE>
Subject: Re: [Bimi] MUA Evaluation of BIMI
X-BeenThere: bimi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Brand Indicators for Message Identification <bimi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bimi>, <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bimi/>
List-Post: <mailto:bimi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bimi>, <mailto:bimi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 01:33:20 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In message <82f4775e-faab-b081-9502-523bd056e9e3@dcrocker.net>, Dave
Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> writes

>In other words, as an end-to-end service, BIMI really should NOT simply 
>defer the question of MTA/MDA/MUA interaction as trust as something left 
>to "the user of the MUA to determine".

there is of course a similar trust issue relating to DNSSEC ... drawing
on the literature there would be helpful I think 

- -- 
richard                                                   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBYi9ujN2nQQHFxEViEQLCHACg1N6FbIR6pet+uOK/T9QpXc0kflkAnjeE
6ifPce7SWQgH/6o9vobTPJrC
=d6jE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email