> Il 23/07/2020 03:24 Matt Corallo via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> ha scritto: > > > The standard appears to provide no protection whatsoever, but the specific > implementation announced by Google relies on > CAs to "authenticate" the domains' logo. Seems like there should be a > standard for that, too.
It's in the standard - BIMI would not make sense if there were not strict controls on who can display the logo, to avoid that other (more or less shady) parties register and display a very similar logo. However, this will soon get into all the trademark craziness of different companies having rights to the same logo in different parts of the world and so on. Also, when reduced to a square a few pixels wide, many logos look quite the same. So we'll see how well the certificate authorities can manage this, also because if they start to say no to legitimate companies because their logo would look too similar to another one by a bigger company, I suspect that antitrust lawsuits may ensue. More generally, BIMI is exclusive by principle; the point is having only a few logos shown, so that they actually constitute a signal of legitimacy; if all email had BIMI logos, then having a logo would not mean anything. This is something I personally dislike. The Internet draft linked in the thread was presented at a BoF at the Prague IETF about 18 months ago, and there was substantial opposition in the room to making this an IETF activity or standard, for the above considerations and more. So at this point in time it is just an initiative by a group of companies. -- Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
