What are the core requirements for implementing BIMI?

BIMI requires that your domain has a DMARC policy set to enforcement (p=quarantine or p=reject). It also typically requires a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) from an accredited Certificate Authority, which in turn necessitates a registered trademark for your logo. You will also need to publish a BIMI DNS record for your domain. For more details, refer to our guide on BIMI implementation requirements .

Does BIMI directly improve email deliverability?

While BIMI itself doesn't directly improve email deliverability in terms of bypassing spam filters, it significantly enhances sender reputation and recipient trust. By requiring strong DMARC authentication, BIMI helps prevent spoofing and phishing, which can indirectly lead to better inbox placement over time as Mailbox Providers gain confidence in your sending practices. Learn more about how BIMI affects deliverability .

Which email clients support BIMI logo display?

Major email clients like Gmail , Fastmail , and Yahoo Mail currently support BIMI. The support, however, often depends on additional factors like the presence of a VMC and the sender's reputation. You can find more information about which email clients support BIMI .

What are the primary benefits of implementing BIMI?

The main benefit of BIMI is increased trust and brand recognition, which can lead to higher email engagement rates. When recipients see a verified logo, they are more likely to open and interact with the email, as it signals authenticity and reduces suspicion of phishing. Explore the impact of BIMI on engagement metrics .

Will BIMI become a standard trust indicator for email like SSL/TLS for websites? - Technical - Email deliverability - Knowledge base

The evolution of digital communication has consistently pushed for greater trust and verification. On the web, SSL/TLS certificates provide a foundational layer of security, assuring users that their connection is encrypted. Now, the question arises whether Brand Indicators for Message Identification (BIMI) will achieve a similar status in the email world.

Many of us wonder if seeing a brand logo next to an email will become as crucial for trust as the padlock icon in a browser. This comparison is compelling, as both aim to provide a visual cue of authenticity without requiring recipients to delve into technical details.

While the journey for BIMI to reach such ubiquitous adoption might be long, understanding its mechanisms and challenges is key to predicting its future. It seeks to bring a new layer of visible brand verification to the inbox, enhancing security beyond standard email authentication protocols.

The potential impact on combating phishing and building consumer confidence is significant, making it a topic of great interest for email marketers and security professionals alike.

BIMI vs. SSL/TLS: what they verify

BIMI (Brand Indicators for Message Identification) is an email specification designed to display a sender's brand logo in supporting email clients. For a logo to appear, the sender's domain must be authenticated with DMARC at an enforcing policy (quarantine or reject) and often requires a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC). A VMC is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) and confirms that the sender legally owns the trademark for the logo they wish to display. This additional layer of verification is what sets BIMI apart from standard email authentication.

SSL/TLS, on the other hand, primarily ensures the encryption of data transmitted between a website and a user's browser, along with server authentication. When you see the padlock icon in your browser, it means the connection is secure. While it verifies the identity of the website server to some extent, especially with Extended Validation (EV) certificates, its main purpose is to prevent eavesdropping and data tampering during transit.

The key difference lies in what they verify: SSL/TLS verifies connection security and server identity, while BIMI verifies sender identity (the brand itself) in a visually prominent way. This identity verification through a VMC, tied to a registered trademark, is intended to make it much harder for malicious actors to spoof legitimate brands effectively, as obtaining a fraudulent trademark and VMC is significantly more difficult than setting up a lookalike domain with standard email authentication.

However, BIMI's reliance on VMCs introduces a cost and complexity that was largely overcome in the web world by initiatives like Let's Encrypt for basic SSL/TLS. This financial barrier is a significant factor in its potential for widespread adoption across all sizes of businesses.

Challenges to widespread BIMI adoption

The path to universal trust is fraught with challenges, especially concerning cost and accessibility. While a basic SSL/TLS certificate can be obtained for free, a VMC for BIMI involves significant upfront costs, including trademark registration fees and the annual cost of the certificate itself. These expenses can be prohibitive for smaller businesses or independent senders, potentially creating a tiered system for email senders where only larger, well-funded organizations can display their brand logos.

This situation draws parallels to the adoption of Extended Validation (EV) SSL certificates. Despite offering a higher level of identity verification (displaying the organization's name in the browser bar), EV certificates never achieved widespread adoption due to their higher cost and the diminishing visual distinction in modern browsers. If BIMI's VMC requirement remains a significant financial burden, it may face a similar fate, limiting its reach primarily to large enterprises.

Another critical aspect is the role of Certificate Authorities (CAs) and Mailbox Providers (MBPs). Unlike website SSL/TLS where a few major browser vendors dictate trust, BIMI's trust model relies on agreements between CAs and individual MBPs. This means a BIMI VMC issued by one CA might not be recognized by all MBPs, creating a fragmented landscape that complicates universal adoption. The labor-intensive verification process required from CAs to vouch for the identity and trustworthiness of their customers is a core part of this challenge. For more details, refer to the BIMI Group's VMC requirements document.

BIMI: a powerful anti-phishing tool

BIMI's most significant potential lies in its ability to combat email phishing and improve brand recognition. By requiring a VMC, BIMI makes it extremely difficult for imposters to display a legitimate brand's logo, as they would need to acquire a trademark and pass stringent identity verification processes. This could significantly enhance recipient confidence, making it easier for users to identify authentic emails from trusted brands and spot suspicious ones.

However, BIMI's effectiveness as a trust indicator is closely tied to its adoption rate and the consistent enforcement of VMC requirements by Mailbox Providers. Some MBPs currently display BIMI logos based on a simpler self-asserted BIMI record (without a VMC), relying solely on DMARC authentication and sender reputation. If this trend continues, BIMI might lose some of its anti-phishing power, as it would be less difficult for bad actors to display a logo without the rigorous VMC process. Mailbox Providers such as

Google and

Yahoo currently require VMCs for logo display, enhancing their users' trust.

The true measure of BIMI's success as a trust indicator will depend on whether its robust, VMC-backed implementation becomes the norm rather than an optional enhancement. This requires ongoing collaboration among CAs, MBPs, and the broader email community to streamline the process, reduce costs, and educate users about the significance of the BIMI logo. Until then, its impact will be more pronounced for brands that invest in full compliance, providing a clearer visual signal of authenticity to their customers.

Despite the hurdles, BIMI contributes to a stronger email ecosystem. It reinforces the importance of foundational email authentication like DMARC, driving more senders to secure their domains against spoofing and phishing. This collective effort, supported by initiatives like BIMI, helps improve overall email security and sender reputation.

BIMI's path to becoming a standard

BIMI's potential as a visible trust signal

BIMI offers a clear visual indicator of authenticated emails, which can significantly boost consumer trust. Unlike underlying authentication protocols such as SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, which are invisible to the average user, BIMI provides an immediate, recognizable signal.

Visual Trust: A verified brand logo makes it easier for recipients to instantly identify legitimate emails, reducing the likelihood of phishing attacks going unnoticed.
Enhanced Recognition: Consistent logo display across inboxes builds brand familiarity and reinforces sender legitimacy.
Increased Engagement: Emails with recognizable logos often see better open rates and engagement, as users are more likely to interact with trusted senders.

The comparison to SSL/TLS is apt in terms of visual trust. Just as a browser displays a padlock, indicating a secure connection, BIMI presents a brand logo. This helps users quickly assess the authenticity of an email. However, the path to widespread adoption faces hurdles, primarily the cost and complexity associated with obtaining and maintaining a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC).

While the requirement for a valid trademark adds a strong layer of identity verification, the expense involved means that smaller organizations may be excluded, leading to an email 'caste system' where only larger brands can afford the visual trust indicator. This could disadvantage smaller businesses in terms of perceived legitimacy and deliverability, as unbranded emails might be viewed with more suspicion over time.

Ultimately, the future of BIMI as a standard trust indicator will depend on a balance between its security benefits and its accessibility. If the costs and complexities can be streamlined, it has the potential to become a powerful and widely adopted tool for email security and brand recognition. Until then, its impact will be significant for larger entities, while smaller senders will rely on robust DMARC policies and sender reputation for their email trust.

The evolution of email authentication is an ongoing process, and BIMI is a crucial part of that journey. It complements existing protocols like DMARC, SPF, and DKIM by adding a human-readable element of trust. Whether it achieves the universal adoption seen with SSL/TLS will hinge on industry-wide efforts to make it more accessible without compromising its core security integrity.

Trust models: websites vs. email

For websites (SSL/TLS)

Primary Goal: Secure data transmission via encryption (HTTPS).
Visual Indicator: Padlock icon in the browser address bar.
Cost/Accessibility: Often free (e.g., Let's Encrypt), making it universally accessible.
Identity Verification: Domain Validation (DV) confirms control of the domain, Organization Validation (OV) and Extended Validation (EV) offer higher identity assurance.

For email (BIMI)

Primary Goal: Visually authenticate sender identity and enhance brand recognition.
Visual Indicator: Brand logo displayed in the email client's inbox list.
Cost/Accessibility: Requires trademark registration and a paid Verified Mark Certificate (VMC).
Identity Verification: VMC validates legal ownership of the trademarked logo, enhancing trust beyond domain authentication.

The fundamental difference between BIMI and SSL/TLS lies in the type of trust they establish. SSL/TLS offers cryptographic assurance that a connection is secure and that you're talking to the correct server. BIMI, especially with a VMC, provides visual assurance of brand identity, making it harder for phishers to masquerade as legitimate organizations. This visual signal is a powerful tool for consumer recognition and trust.

However, BIMI's current dependency on a paid Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) and a registered trademark creates a significant barrier to entry compared to the largely free and widely adopted SSL/TLS. This economic hurdle prevents universal adoption, raising concerns about an email caste system, where only large corporations can afford to display their logos, potentially leaving smaller businesses at a disadvantage in terms of perceived trustworthiness. The cost for a VMC and trademark registration can be several hundred to over a thousand dollars annually.

Despite these challenges, the intent behind BIMI is clear: to enhance email security by making it visually obvious when an email comes from a verified sender. Its potential to reduce phishing attacks and boost legitimate brand engagement is undeniable, and its future widespread adoption hinges on evolving accessibility and continued support from major Mailbox Providers. The BIMI Group continues to work on the standard, providing resources and updates on its progress.

Views from the trenches

Best practices

Ensure your DMARC policy is set to p=quarantine or p=reject to meet BIMI requirements for logo display.

Obtain a registered trademark for your logo, as this is a prerequisite for a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC).

Work with an accredited Certificate Authority to acquire your VMC, ensuring your logo meets all technical specifications.

Monitor your DMARC reports regularly to ensure proper authentication and identify any potential issues that could affect BIMI display.

Align your domain reputation (sender score, deliverability) as some Mailbox Providers consider this alongside BIMI for logo display.

Common pitfalls

Not having a DMARC policy at enforcement (quarantine/reject) will prevent your BIMI logo from displaying.

Using a logo that is not a registered trademark or doesn't comply with SVG Tiny PS profile requirements.

Failing to renew your VMC, which will cause your BIMI logo to disappear from inboxes.

Underestimating the time and resources required for trademark registration and VMC acquisition.

Expecting BIMI to solve all deliverability issues; it's an enhancement, not a replacement for good sending practices.

Expert tips

Consider BIMI as an extension of your brand's digital identity and security strategy, not just a marketing gimmick.

Educate your marketing and security teams on the value and requirements of BIMI to ensure cross-departmental support.

Start with DMARC implementation and gradually move to enforcement before pursuing BIMI, to minimize disruption.

Even if BIMI is not widely adopted, the underlying DMARC enforcement significantly improves email security and deliverability.

Look for Certificate Authorities that specialize in VMCs and can guide you through the process, as it can be complex.

Expert view

Expert from Email Geeks says BIMI is not a trust indicator in the same way SPF, DKIM, or DMARC are fundamental authentication mechanisms.

2021-11-21 - Email Geeks

Marketer view

Marketer from Email Geeks says that if a brand indicator is seen, especially with all ISPs requiring a VMC, it would significantly increase confidence that the sender is legitimate, as it's harder for bad actors to implement a lookalike brand indicator than to mimic SPF, DKIM, and DMARC on a lookalike domain.

2021-11-21 - Email Geeks

The verdict on BIMI's trust status

While BIMI offers a compelling vision for email trust and brand identity, it's unlikely to become a universal trust indicator in the exact same way SSL/TLS has for websites. The primary reasons stem from its higher cost of implementation, specifically the requirement for a registered trademark and a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC), and the fragmented landscape of Mailbox Provider support for VMCs. This creates barriers to entry, particularly for smaller businesses.

However, BIMI undeniably enhances email security and brand recognition. For organizations that can meet its requirements, it provides a strong visual signal of authenticity, making it significantly harder for phishers to succeed. By driving DMARC adoption to an enforcing policy, BIMI also contributes to a more secure email ecosystem overall.

The future of BIMI will likely see it become a strong indicator of trust for major brands and organizations committed to advanced email security. Its role will be less about universal adoption like the basic SSL/TLS padlock, and more about serving as a premium, verified brand identity signal that complements robust email authentication protocols. Organizations should consider BIMI as a valuable addition to their email security and branding strategy, especially if they prioritize combating spoofing and enhancing recipient confidence.