IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bimi] Logo/Trademark conflict

Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> Wed, 10 April 2019 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@valimail.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 BAA581203BB for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=valimail.com
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 Qw-9DCzt4BR3 for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x336.google.com (mail-wm1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::336]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 740D91203D8 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x336.google.com with SMTP id q16so3322368wmj.3 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=valimail.com; s=google2048; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uKWwqbvW40Yi5Tu/hC/Mz//plyTI1NzGr696dYPKgZA=; b=f6hlNcWozLQCjTprVXqHz8v0rF0+dikLk4LrODSP9Jov+KH4wHhbmEtqoc9SnJUERw jSP+3nFueYSKGqdSanRpOpdkMVTZ9LMLMU9ZL6w/ca0hPjboQUBGZ+o2mHcwIC27SnnM uckfoVe1vEWNDXoGZQMjFiOG/1ZY2ICj5E6v/GqMXDj8/KvwXZLu5CN9eMQbB2aubBsL Yoa58ckJb2/tzmsNWRls4H2nsjv02ma/qKURiHXBdRZNcTQfonMRHJWhFVJ4ey1dXZ3F qzfITIBD4xePaXlPPf0L6be8jo6Tn1/LhrDc5fgRQWAqYkjO2ty4s6WhbKxjY+zOCE1Y x8iA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uKWwqbvW40Yi5Tu/hC/Mz//plyTI1NzGr696dYPKgZA=; b=ZvkohY0vPhh1Je7/t+D9dC7sRwOAGdQLAucex6ILhO5UPQgkWGj32qi0zTLWF26Fj+ 3eCo3q0nixoR7VEJY54u+EwZvCDcC8pRPy5pXKoysqpRvYdy2j0UjM2L+tjxwcb5i6KV u7rP5NcvcQwOyKuEE7O7TsUT0xzxsshe46cvWhceuWfEuxLK0qxW3Eteip5opXRm3qLV qQBEbwyIbxiJl9bQjB20B3xW+fbO+Cod6/IzvmI74GDewvXE0Vl46p9GkJ+emeL8AOFS 7JHLGpq8XtG10YthHSEeR+qzaulDTBoEPpC162IurLopon6olZhVCsUnh/3sVLSPhUQN V81g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV9v0222huurcDtnTlViARNpOxC2J/BPdLuQKn7r/khKkg6HhHX gBzkArnZQuTKqLINm1xhv58cZQbUvkhMeFerGxZQmgZMJ8c=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzS/V3kl4KwZ2RhwoQppW62Qo4romI6B25UCuTY1dt860yv17WV0pkylieyoKsWA2zEJzuxWiuOEOuLUHqPv7o=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:9ec7:: with SMTP id h190mr3604181wme.105.1554913867828; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <54c335ec-d4a7-d842-1d72-af5a5ec8df43@dcrocker.net> <CAOZAAfMVp+jit7raDqP0vnz-AtU6J4igZsJY+0rt5MjZivEE_g@mail.gmail.com> <5f5663ae-149b-59f8-efd7-42864f6643d9@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <5f5663ae-149b-59f8-efd7-42864f6643d9@dcrocker.net>
From: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 18:30:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOZAAfNyQQ99MT7xKgZT=LJjSF-kxezn-7ZzW1Ac1EFSu-dj1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: bimi@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bfb30005862f981b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bimi/R_FIaqiIXVqHT17cRA7X9Irmm6Y>
Subject: Re: [Bimi] Logo/Trademark conflict
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: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 16:31:15 -0000

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 6:26 PM Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> This barrier to Bimi's working at scale has been noted constantly since
> the first Bimi talks.  Nothing about that barrier has changed.
>

We went through these issues in detail at the BoF and discussed our
starting point for addressing them, which we agree doesn't cover use cases
at scale. Your example from this thread is similar to the Stripe of
Delaware vs Stripe of Kentucky attack we discussed, but without any intent
to deceive. What is your suggestion for addressing these issues?

-- 

Seth Blank | Director, Industry Initiatives

e: seth@valimail.com |* p: *415-273-8818

<https://www.valimail.com/>


<https://twitter.com/valimail> <https://twitter.com/valimail>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/valimail/>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/valimail/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ValiMail-649042791951699>
<https://www.facebook.com/Valimail-649042791951699/>

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it.  If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful.  Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email