Oh, all I’m saying is that presenting the logo without a proper check or after being fooled into a proper check would be a problem. And there’d be some creative ways (css? logo included at random other places in the friendly from? etc) spammers would look at mimicking such a logo
--srs ________________________________ From: mailop <mailop-boun...@mailop.org> on behalf of Dave Crocker via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2020 11:32:46 PM To: mailop@mailop.org <mailop@mailop.org> Subject: Re: [mailop] BIMI pilot @ Google On 7/22/2020 3:45 PM, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote: > However the majority of our users prefer meaningful avatars and brand > logos in their email experience as it helps them identify email senders > and it helps with them with triaging. As others have noted, BIMI is a logo-display service, not a security service. To make this point a bit stronger: BIMI provides no incremental security-related capabilities, such as anti-phishing. Claims that presenting logos to users aids in anti-phishing efforts are counter-factual. There's no data supporting the view that it's helpful and substantial history that it isn't. To the extent anyone disagrees with this assessment, it would be quite helpful to see the data. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
