Re: [Bimi] (non)desire for bimi

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 2/18/2019 8:31 AM, Thede Loder wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 2019, at 13:44, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Knowing your personal dislike of HTML-based email, and also that ~1 billion
> people read HTML email messages each day, many of whom like seeing
> graphics, tables, and other mark up, would you have proposed back when
> it was being considered for standardiation that it should never be developed
> or standardized?

Thede,

This seems to be in the "what about" realm of responding to criticism by 
raising a purportedly related hypothetical.  That response mode 
typically seeks to dilute the original criticism.  In effect in this 
case, it seems to suggest that no one should ever worry about new 
security attack surfaces.

At the least, it certainly does not respond to the concern about the 
attack surface that was cited.


>> Yes I do indeed fear that bimi could and would be (ab)used by
>> some services to do more such dis-service. ISTM that damages
>> the mail environment rather than enhances it.
> 
> Your fear is justifiable.
> 
> One can imagine future anti-spam or anti-fraud systems. 

Sorry.  I am not understanding how the hypothetical that followed is 
relevant.  Please explain.


> I think the relevant question is:
> 
> If BIMI adoption contributes to a shift in the norms and certain costs
> associated with effectively using applicable existing media, on the
> balance, have we made these media better for the actors we care
> about?

What norms?  What costs?  How will it do either?



d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net