IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bimi] Proposal to Clarify Role of MUA in BIMI Evaluation

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 19 July 2022 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 BA4A7C157B48 for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 12:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qUg8ANluK-hi for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 12:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from olivedrab.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (olivedrab.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.135]) (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 E7595C14F74B for <bimi@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 12:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C04E2C2B60 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 19:20:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from gcp-us-central1-a-smtpout1.hostinger.io (unknown [127.0.0.6]) (Authenticated sender: hostingeremail) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 277A12C28E4 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 19:20:19 +0000 (UTC)
ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-2022; d=mailchannels.net; t=1658258419; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=xRuaVWfXNlEWk8tIhKkWnEAxj948ABs5C3/p1GHFB6cRi7EPj+imnfAcCbsk+JDjXa1WZs Kzxs+Yrtq1YD0utAGnMUg4v6oTqJbz2aUcZQEUTtkunYO7jT0995OcF2rJ8zruTaAKJTro Rej5HTT/+RYuh+qbEl6M8AOWgoOQO2w0MMxPjcVDGySpklDX43+ECKdfK/9vNCW3bxrdLl NYKGx78TjUPcAmuSmwIVoAgFK/dc7hY+Ruj2CNdmCcRZaBi/A+SHY7v624ANr2rYMwKVYp oPLS44fdosPMoBkP6ukO2ls4tSACjbPjdNsdMR7Dah5osELISfACGzd26JWtHQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailchannels.net; s=arc-2022; t=1658258419; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=8qMpKiXnQ9LC/P5xYAxM/KQIvGVmlPzBKK/BLvpEOGI=; b=PjRq1ZMqkp+erO7KjoypqtJH9bILNFroy5Uc5ffMr930ssE8kIEXBe5FmGlYGkVIGFMAWn sw//EhnTNoGdw4qwWbB4H84wQ+6na6WoCNSHjm/ciByQDNqYUU+yN44PCWIkNBmu8Ek2lI TO5U56EWPlKMGQYzS1ELGqDNTukmlU5bN7VaBCR6kc1HE8v8PQEYu1rLGMggmuRTXxiLsf Mr2LR0drKRAPEAo/oyeymRUe5KCUlKkqDIJQEwhqxrIk3nQKyN7DcdMg9ZxziIfl9VH3lP q7lH/Yjoh3ACQ+GxbfEoy0vBa1A1521fJDnZafqsfAndGGjO+C6844I3wj/QhQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; rspamd-674ffb986c-hjnl4; auth=pass smtp.auth=hostingeremail smtp.mailfrom=dhc@dcrocker.net
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: hostingeremail
X-Tank-Tank: 5b9198c139c44f95_1658258419485_1883063742
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1658258419485:1531822561
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1658258419485
Received: from gcp-us-central1-a-smtpout1.hostinger.io (gcp-us-central1-a-smtpout1.hostinger.io [35.184.15.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by 100.120.38.179 (trex/6.7.1); Tue, 19 Jul 2022 19:20:19 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.104] (c-73-170-122-71.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.170.122.71]) (Authenticated sender: dhc@dcrocker.net) by smtp.hostinger.com (smtp.hostinger.com) with ESMTPSA id 4LnTDx0KPtz2fF6h; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 19:20:16 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dcrocker.net; s=hostingermail-a; t=1658258418; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=8qMpKiXnQ9LC/P5xYAxM/KQIvGVmlPzBKK/BLvpEOGI=; b=omcXqHw3ktX0AVMckcLtZt9GbIXNqpTLx0S98oLmqhvYPDC8k1nK3RLSWPpAOTWWJGVips jbsCmnbHjL9OV3wBTgmzt5KcVymgRFwBDn7BC4nikydJDzwIR4zadoa8p2CafWHlMuuNBU BgLVe1JmMTtAgJ0FR7WaoaUIOKQy8YiTA1DrgQJEyVD6EB7bmuIYzMA48hxXVg/oqGEU9T N/4GCPfuulsE/VuT8pWLvPBYDyOSOFHWUlv6nH1Wl80n+MtZhkcKfc59/CLJdTu+XwGbEn FkPqY2pWKC9aPbPmqfyZzz9C9WWBqgZKv49U1J5Q+LmrV4HPAj0oP1ph+spj6A==
Message-ID: <90369013-6a44-0b6f-4345-53595695de30@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 12:20:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Content-Language: en-US
To: Todd Herr <todd.herr=40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: bimi@ietf.org
References: <DE61AC51-4BC3-44FF-862D-7D8ADFB3BC29@proofpoint.com> <20CBD506-7E50-4161-ADE6-64614630B1B2@proofpoint.com> <CAHej_8kridbc322MDRpxfgd+8Y2yNacxTAtvr+HF=+wevdRQhw@mail.gmail.com> <VI1PR01MB70538965904FD08A49F75C37C78C9@VI1PR01MB7053.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <11A2B052-A26C-4A9C-9D88-72B594DA1C59@proofpoint.com> <VI1PR01MB70537BA29DA1F456B858C17FC78C9@VI1PR01MB7053.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <6993E8B6-11A0-4AF3-A94E-044F880E56BC@proofpoint.com> <CAHej_8kjwtGE4rDrXfTpgThOD-jh7t0GK9EUnVjVZT_OJzzsvg@mail.gmail.com> <VI1PR01MB705353E36328899609DE2471C78C9@VI1PR01MB7053.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <12a85dfe-664f-d757-0fa2-81f17c8088c2@dcrocker.net> <4e9ab94e-8675-df70-3e4b-00edcedb266e@dcrocker.net> <5DE65D46-853F-4F61-ADA7-20CB5E7E6840@kitterman.com> <7f030278-3f9b-c8ea-f9eb-644f006cded9@dcrocker.net> <CC11EF68-1E27-41CD-AE2D-AC26DA261EAD@kitterman.com> <CAHej_8mNCTw0LpnWTBCpqZJhHQcDgrsC4truK1dD_-HbyVgsWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
In-Reply-To: <CAHej_8mNCTw0LpnWTBCpqZJhHQcDgrsC4truK1dD_-HbyVgsWA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bimi/FM31bO066dYOtE6WVKJxLzB79fI>
Subject: Re: [Bimi] Proposal to Clarify Role of MUA in BIMI Evaluation
X-BeenThere: bimi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 19 Jul 2022 19:20:28 -0000

On 7/19/2022 12:14 PM, Todd Herr wrote:
> To me, BIMI's reliance on DMARC passing (and being at something other 
> than p=none) means that the condition at time of message receipt is 
> the only one that matters. 

So if the message is displayed much later, and the BIMI certification 
has become invalid, it is ok to still display the mark that was 
associated at the original time of validation?

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email