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

[Neil Jenkins <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, at 01:58 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> So here's an entirely un-novel suggestion:  get the organizations who
> are expecting to implement and deploy this to say so.



Sure! So, FastMail[1], Atmail[2], Linagora[3] are all developing
clients and server based around the current draft proposed to the IETF.
There is implementation work happening in both Cyrus[4] and Dovecot[5]
the two largest open-source IMAP servers. So far in this thread we've
had representatives from Apple and Zimbra both expressing positive
interest in JMAP.


The other side of this, which I mentioned earlier, is the many
proprietary protocols that are popping up, invariably HTTP/JSON based,
to replace the need for IMAP/SMTP (submission). Things like Nylas[6],
Context.io[7] and the Gmail API[8].


There are many benefits to the work we're proposing over IMAP/SMTP
submission; the current thread seems to have got a bit hung up on the
configuration bit, but while this is certainly an improvement it's just
one of many[9].


You may think IMAP/SMTP are great solutions to this problem space, but
it would appear industry disagrees.


Neil.


Links:

  1. https://www.fastmail.com/
  2. https://www.atmail.com/
  3. https://www.linagora.com/
  4. https://cyrusimap.org/
  5. https://www.dovecot.org/
  6. https://nylas.com/cloud/docs
  7. Context.iohttps://context.io/docs/lite
  8. https://developers.google.com/gmail/api/v1/reference/
  9. http://jmap.io/#why-is-jmap-better-than-imap?