On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 11:56 -0700, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:35 AM Jim Popovitch via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 14:49 +0200, Sidsel Jensen via mailop wrote: > > > but if the effect is that it will drive up the adoption rate for DMARC > > > then I am clapping my hands. > > > > "Once verified, the BIMI file tells the email service where to find the > > sender’s logo and the email service pulls that logo into the inbox." > > > > > > I don't think this is anything about DMARC, this is about inbox > > tracking. > > Um. No. > 1: DMARC is required for BIMI.
Good, DMARC is good, but we don't need yet another standard to get DKIM and SPF into the wider use. > 2: A proper setup will proxy and cache the logo. eg: for us all you can track > through BIMI is if our logo service is alive and well... I hope you understand that most providers don't care if your logo service is alive and well. Surely we don't need a spec for that. Whether you understand it or not, if a proxy or cache fetches your logo, you can get very valuable data about inbox hit rate data, eg tracking. -Jim P. _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
