IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bimi] Concerns regarding draft-blank-ietf-bimi-00

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 10 February 2019 05:05 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 AE70112894E for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Feb 2019 21:05:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=P1ZfnUN3; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Hl/5nxsd
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 Fa09EFxL1cXQ for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Feb 2019 21:05:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 B00FE124408 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Feb 2019 21:05:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 52842 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2019 05:05:49 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=ce67.5c5fb12d.k1902; bh=s4zsbE71E13Bv61xCsDNhapfTLWOHUtPmLRsNkUPkyk=; b=P1ZfnUN3gr3IZ0wREtajsMTUky9BKSong09P7AiQSGqI+3N7LtX5ZMB0Y/rK2QlT1kvF6Ex6Z0CEJLrwRcL3HAZZdwA5H+iwS46oO8Y14JwyzX0Pe59y0GCcLiYGjhZ0GvhBi1lIZR84E1krC6PC6l/Vj89U5h8aLMaTBcq1cWMOswp4JPsL8jHLP/SHz66ZB3ERr5u3EkOPfAew5sTU1VUVYHJ4BTEmpGUPZHUvX9d3BP+AzIkgzUaiv4AW1/EL
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=ce67.5c5fb12d.k1902; bh=s4zsbE71E13Bv61xCsDNhapfTLWOHUtPmLRsNkUPkyk=; b=Hl/5nxsdliCTwNKauv6SXrA/o5jbzceiGTBfPsDUjuFqrAyQ4jXyJgK4i/BG7lDlof16P7iQuZQanxtOiyKsuhXuOtzRq4MOy8HuMc/C2lkCx8HF/2uPBpjqcOH4Wxw9uwqTULehmSBTkG+PHK47gAUzizvggtAkLpxKGMVUPYGUYwADQZeQwe0twCphCG4+1eZ11+mFUhzn0MbAkuqMMaOEXh+x8cvd8dhXiK7dtQvgN4OqkyouSFAmzOh5/Xzh
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 10 Feb 2019 05:05:49 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 49101200E153A3; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 00:05:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 00:05:48 -0500
Message-Id: <20190210050549.49101200E153A3@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: bimi@ietf.org
Cc: kboth@drkurt.com
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1qX3_LyoKjxtCwaZNxN96-CDoK7B-+EbNpggjhQX=60ow@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bimi/Vy5BbRWNC7zgvY3wRrKZWs-YZwQ>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 09 Feb 2019 21:19:51 -0800
Subject: Re: [Bimi] Concerns regarding draft-blank-ietf-bimi-00
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: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 05:05:55 -0000

In article <CABuGu1qX3_LyoKjxtCwaZNxN96-CDoK7B-+EbNpggjhQX=60ow@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>8.6 is attempting to dictate to mail stores (rMS) how to do their business
>- seems like we should stay out of that space. It also ignores JMAP as a
>retrieval protocol.

No kidding.  I know how to put flags on messages with IMAP and
probably with JMAP, but there's no such thing in POP.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email