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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> In article <[e-mail]> 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.