IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bimi] draft-bkl-bimi-overview-00

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 17 March 2019 21:14 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 90D2912865D for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
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=zMBPyN9R; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=fh5PKgL+
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 Q_zEXpo6dO4p for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
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 118C41277D7 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 83216 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2019 21:14:17 -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=1450e.5c8eb8a9.k1903; bh=D68X1ZBPtFNlJGPWJ6jNaOSvLjLV0Z40p58qLRtCJOM=; b=zMBPyN9RY4AgQBS5N41Pb7noHXOBmdG9YFqMhc3scHptFFuVfmqfgGyn8r702+J1sUQmd5eg4RLSVRAGXUgm7JQecPjd4eFoyTpByJPD70k+vH8onUc0Izs0xSloWvVzvSDbAY95z85kdSWo37f5j85N5ZG7/I0hY160rnp9X65IvE/ZKGSjAYe2jKG6X+eGcaYSFEkh6YcgRkyIh7L5jxrtLtQqCiJ8PeYNZ4ZneCv1xHrJHR00C2FcZeC50t1A
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=1450e.5c8eb8a9.k1903; bh=D68X1ZBPtFNlJGPWJ6jNaOSvLjLV0Z40p58qLRtCJOM=; b=fh5PKgL+NFKYX7qxLuqeB6LHSK9+3N3ad/BkMG/jte12afbM4XejqtJtcbLhV9DzFJBsH/uQP0GyH98JPezaRucWIQ8Uccgv8LBTGFceLgJF6iuy3SlgBJXTfibiEndBUNUXs9kraB89dqGAfNGWIctlFsdzqhc5ikFCIJvLcpmNplocD4dCyQEqajSOwwoikeIXVAQdkjusiSOaA2nEtmGSjUdfjz9nc09eoTtrUhasV1GK7rviqWIgBIDNyIGK
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; 17 Mar 2019 21:14:17 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3F62A200FF7F2A; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:14:16 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:14:16 -0400
Message-Id: <20190317211417.3F62A200FF7F2A@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: bimi@ietf.org
Cc: seth@valimail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfOKm=NO4w=GwgxMLcqYKkkHgh00NSd5spFBs-5tp=QH_w@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/f54ORIRbkI3F8b5LgIljagUtcUA>
Subject: Re: [Bimi] draft-bkl-bimi-overview-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, 17 Mar 2019 21:14:20 -0000

In article <CAOZAAfOKm=NO4w=GwgxMLcqYKkkHgh00NSd5spFBs-5tp=QH_w@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>> recipients. I think it should also identify that there are potential
>> benefits to receivers and operators of MUAs too.

I would want to see more than speculation there.  As Dave Crocker
often reminds us, human factor research has made it clear that most
humans are completely unable to do anything useful with security
indicators.  That's one of the reasons that browsers aren't showing EV
cert indicators any more, and have made it a lot harder to click
through invalid cert warnings.

I'm not aware of any research specifically about indicators on mail
messages.  Perhaps that would be a good place to toss some money at
academic researchers.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email