IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bimi] (non)desire for bimi

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 14 February 2019 17:52 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 B180812EB11 for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:52:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=bwOdSCLj; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=fYxInzWP
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 9PgjLF6GORMU for <bimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:52:45 -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 558E612D829 for <bimi@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:52:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 47321 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2019 17:52:44 -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=b8d3.5c65aaec.k1902; bh=FV0DtXZ8V/Hnyjxms68YY6GvQLGKogQ9kFBHEALAyxM=; b=bwOdSCLjXKlysyaWgKfbrXv8TIw4CPfzmPMtt1wMF1jXyPdeho255HcOuv6mvIK19BojfDoyHkB0HI5+gzRsDi69L034aH/KegRP/qBN3ZaS+4mQcTasqZteRYO3TUA+hNvAgQJ/O2aJrmcYBrSGVaFv1c1bV5FfK1Cf1+P+5N2zlmL4Nq9sKCKAkU6rGgFaaX8CU/lrWwu7Ffp802Tm4ErBbCCTQR+xYSCH8Sn4xZPFnuO8rGDfmqBYZ0eMqlHO
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=b8d3.5c65aaec.k1902; bh=FV0DtXZ8V/Hnyjxms68YY6GvQLGKogQ9kFBHEALAyxM=; b=fYxInzWPotSZEAL8mYaARJWWNNf9hQrFvR43puJ5hwo7Li45O97OH8EfnqCPbaXvZqzUr/cCfHE1c0WLiRAiQnfH9A8LiPXu6YILLZeEzD/+CG/lOmCBZZZhyVHEfM8Y1NabphOHGmP1LAhHqh8zMUSjl9Sssz4A31b4bAUhNePDbbFaoNBJpePlkJKG4A2AxoWk8TW5BcLDfv0w/Boz6LCQcZrm+XjjvBOcRmsV5YkWhom4JlrElnlWCowhmYXA
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; 14 Feb 2019 17:52:43 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 950C2200E509D1; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:52:42 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:52:42 -0500
Message-Id: <20190214175243.950C2200E509D1@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: bimi@ietf.org
Cc: tzink@terryzink.com
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR11MB3107712FFFD2D92E911B909DA9670@BL0PR11MB3107.namprd11.prod.outlook.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/mu9db6_EAy6tH1VyDUU8mqOqrzA>
Subject: Re: [Bimi] (non)desire for bimi
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: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 17:52:47 -0000

In article <BL0PR11MB3107712FFFD2D92E911B909DA9670@BL0PR11MB3107.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> you write:
>How does this not show demand? Isn't this an example of web mail providers wanting to enhance the user
>experience, and companies happily obliging, and me as a user being pleased?

I think you're extrapolating from a point.  To extrapolate from
another point, I find all those blinky things extremely annoying and
specifically choose mail software that does not show them.

>I'm not sure I understand this comment. The logos are not added to mail headers, but instead headers
>point to a location where the logo can be picked up and then shown to the end user. What's the
>difference between the sender/brand providing an authoritative source (DNS record that points to a CDN)
>vs Office 365/Yahoo pulling from their own internal database?

It makes it in effect another web bug.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email