Re: [Bimi] BIMI Reporting

[Trent Adams <[e-mail]>]

All good questions… and I hope to see responses from receivers / mailbox providers / MUA operators interested in sending BIMI reports…

… but if it's unlikely anyone will be generating/sending BIMI reports… well… that'll help us focus our time on other activities.

Anyone out there looking to generate/send BIMI reports?

Curious,
Trent


From: bimi <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Brotman, Alex" <Alex_Brotman=[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, April 8, 2022 at 6:20 AM
To: Tom Bartel <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Bimi] BIMI Reporting

Tom, I have questions about how this would be counted (“aggregate” is vague). Once per recipient for the entirety of the inbox? In the web versions for active participants, the logo shows only when the message is opened. In mobile, it shows

Tom,

I have questions about how this would be counted (“aggregate” is vague).


  1.  Once per recipient for the entirety of the inbox?
  2.  In the web versions for active participants, the logo shows only when the message is opened.  In mobile, it shows in the list view and when opened.  How is that accounted for?
  3.  Is it all messages in the inbox, even if not sent that day?
  4.  MUAs may cache these images, and then may not need to fetch them on-demand.  Does this reduce the usefulness of the metric?

Could not the brands utilize their own engagement metrics to determine if the squeeze is good?  I understand there are various groups trying to eliminate the Open metric, though the Click/Conversion metrics are still viable, yes?

I’m not entirely comfortable with BIMI itself being an engagement metric. Is this meant to be optionally supplied by the receiver?

Thanks for the feedback.

--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast

From: bimi <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Tom Bartel
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 7:09 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Bimi] BIMI Reporting


After reviewing the BIMI Reporting draft:



https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-adams-bimi-reporting<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-adams-bimi-reporting__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!R06xZr6hwSAFSpSZ8V7DUzSjr9LHJ6z5gGQTn-w0XPV_AiVHqAGmmAIvC3wly4lKgKpggrQ$>



I think that it may be missing some useful data that would greatly benefit BIMI (and DMARC) adoption. Through discussions with senders interested in BIMI, it’s become apparent that they’ll need to measure the effectiveness of their deployment (to justify their spend), and I don’t think that the current reporting draft includes the necessary level of data.



I’d suggest the addition of an aggregate count per reporting period (e.g. 24 hours) of BIMI logos that were displayed by the MUA. This would be in addition to the aggregate BIMI record evaluations already in the draft.



Senders ultimately want to know if the “juice will be worth the squeeze” - that is, not only implementing DMARC, but the additional effort of implementing BIMI, too.



I know that this level of reporting may happen elsewhere in the email pipeline than where DMARC and initial BIMI evaluation occurs, though I think it’s important enough to explore whether it can be added.



What do folks think? Does it make sense to add this additional reporting signal to the BIMI Reporting draft?

Tom