Re: WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 08 February 2017 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C743129D9C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:06:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0dNm1qkPyCIj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:06:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65680129DD0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:06:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 25701 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2017 19:06:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2017 19:06:08 -0000
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 19:05:46 -0000
Message-ID: <20170208190546.15385.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity
In-Reply-To: <e9e8141f-0bc2-870e-c10e-d8894673e455@dcrocker.net>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4mGRyml5SLEPyr4ecKS-zs5fgnE>
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 19:06:11 -0000

>This creates a dual-stack operational environment.  They always have
>real -- and often problematic -- operational effects.

Well, we've survived with POP and IMAP for two decades.  

We might want to put something in the charter noting that the
underlying mail has to be RFC822/5322, but the drafts all seem to
assume that.

Re separating mail pickup from submission, I understand why we decided
to keep it separate when we did RFC4409, but that was a decade ago and
the mail world has changed.  In particular, I don't think anyone in
2006 expected that the majority of mail users would be sending and
receiving mail using apps on the phones in their pockets.  

At this point, if someone says that their POP/IMAP/JMAP and SUBMIT
servers need different credentials, I'd suggest that is a cruel joke
to play on your users, you should fix it, and while you're at it,
you should accept submission through JMAP, too.  If you can't fix
it, there will still be some IMAP and SUBMIT clients for a long time.

R's,
John