[Bimi] (non)desire for bimi

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

(Sorry for not replying in-thread but I just subscribed
to the list, and this perhaps also deserves a separate
thread.)

>>> * Internet users want it - clear demand
>>
>> That claim keeps being made but I've never seen any serious
>> documentation for it.
>
> Marketing people want it -- that may not be documented but I have
> sufficient anecdotes to hand to believe it be the main driver here.

I'd be interested in some kind of verifiable backup
for that "clear demand" claim - I'm unaware that
such exists, other than perhaps as Richard says for
marketing purposes, and ISTM those purposes are amply
met already via mail bodies.

Meanwhile...

I use the Internet. I do not want logos added to mail
headers that increase the attack surface of my MUAs,
(and MS/MTAs), that likely enable additional tracking
of mail users, including me, and where mobile device
and web MUAs are unlikely to offer me an option to
turn all that off, even if some desktop MUAs might
(eventually), at the risk of making messages harder
to comprehend.

I also just do not want to see your logos, thanks.
Imposing those on me would decrease the utility of
mail. And regardless of what PKI were built I would
not treat bimi'd messages any better, more likely
I'd consider them badly.

As someone who sends email (not as a bulk sender)
from various domains that I operate, I do not want
to pay €€€ to someone for an additional cert, nor
for an "approved" logo, in order to increase the
chances that my mail gets delivered. Things in that
respect are bad enough, and this proposal seems to
me likely to only worsen the situation for those
who operate small domains, presumably to the benefit
of those who operate large mail infrastructures
and CAs who issue certs for money.

I also do not want to have to check if someone else
has abused a logo I may use in some CT log. I do
not want to have to process additional headers in my
MTAs nor retrieve and store your logos in some new
image store. I do not want to have to deal with any
of the new problems that'll arise when any of that
breaks.

So: No thanks, from me. Personally, as a mail user
I only see downsides to this whole idea.

Thanks,
S.