Re: MITM and proxy messages [was: Call for Adoption: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http]

+1 on the image.

Users want to see something so they know the response is coming from 
someone/something they have heard of, and the logo is the most effective 
way to do this, since people don't read text.

Otherwise if there's any question about the source of the message, it 
becomes ineffective.


------ Original Message ------
From: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Cc: "Walter H." <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info>; "HTTP Working Group" 
<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 8/08/2016 6:39:09 PM
Subject: Re: MITM and proxy messages [was: Call for Adoption: 
draft-song-dns-wireformat-http]

>On 8 August 2016 at 16:30, <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> wrote:
>>  Yes branding sucks but users want branding so at least define an 
>>embedded data: logo with strict limits on size and format.
>
>I have no problem with an image being defined.  I can't promise that
>it will be disabled (or where), because I don't do our security UX,
>but it's a reasonable request.
>
>As for image parsing bugs, yeah I agree.
>

Received on Monday, 8 August 2016 22:23:16 UTC