Re: [Extra] Is this a plausible IMAP extension ?

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Sat, 02 March 2019 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C8A130E64 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 09:05:05 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.com
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 q1AyhXTUAnfJ for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 09:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.218.59.24]) (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 9F299130E66 for <extra@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 09:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R3TJO54D6O00TD25@mauve.mrochek.com> for extra@ietf.org; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 08:59:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1551545998; bh=7FAfQPi/VXJ0OKR49TLUMGPHolJEuT3S4n1EILBq2M8=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=bVJHgBFT12BFbwdxfY9hxbFc1KtmHZP7CYmlX5jB0UzilUY5i29UXOpTzen3oV+ig STHxwCGHsP8sPGb4NwjVsjafy6wAIHsAqT1PWVbUAOSeEyJORokpWqMybsEmmqXxFH AvHsLFFe+MMVNKRc4AtrLfYlwNKvLoY5Ods7/BNw=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R3MU6TZ3HS00004L@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 2019 08:59:55 -0800 (PST)
Cc: extra@ietf.org, ned.freed@mrochek.com
Message-id: <01R3TJO31IL800004L@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 08:55:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 03 Mar 2019 00:35:31 +0900" <20190302153532.86AEF200F83ABF@ary.local>
References: <01R3SIVTJAOS00004L@mauve.mrochek.com> <20190302153532.86AEF200F83ABF@ary.local>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/rIxK-EbdPIBbCF1Ntwv-9vH4urs>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Is this a plausible IMAP extension ?
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 17:05:17 -0000

> In article <01R3SIVTJAOS00004L@mauve.mrochek.com> you write:
> >The question is what value, if any, does that add. As I see it the big problem
> >is that nothing prevents goggle.com from signing a pointer to Google's logo.
> >Or a logo that looks very, very similar to Google's.
> >
> >Until and unless BIMI offers a solution to this problem, I'm afraid I see very
> >little value here.

> That's where we came in, the recipient MTA validates the logo, adds a
> header pointing to the validated logo, and adds a magic IMAP flag to
> say that it's done so.

How is this validation performed? If the answer is the DKIM signature check,
that doesn't address the issue at hand in any way I can see.

> I'm not saying that's a particularly good way to do it, but it's not
> like they haven't thought about it.  There's also the mess of how in
> the real world you determine whether the owner of a domain should be
> using any particular logo.

Precisely my point.

				Ned

> PS: there's some urgency here since the big gorillas are showing
> sender logos now and not doing a wonderful job of it.