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

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

> On 8 Feb 2017, at 5:15, Neil Jenkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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 <https://www.fastmail.com/>, Atmail <https://www.atmail.com/>, Linagora <https://www.linagora.com/> are all developing clients and server based around the current draft proposed to the IETF. There is implementation work happening in both Cyrus <https://cyrusimap.org/> and Dovecot <https://www.dovecot.org/> 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.

That’s good to know. I’m wondering if implementing a generic email client (rather than a specific “gmail” or “live” client) isn’t becoming ever harder. With so many older and newer services, a client has to support pop3, imap, smtp, EWS, ActiveSync, and maybe a few of the others you mentioned. This effort proposes to add yet another one.

Same for a server. A server (even a corporate server, but also public ones like gmail) exposes all kinds of protocols: SMTP, IMAP, POP3 and some proprietary ones. This is yet another one, and it comes with the additional support headache. What do you do if the JMAP clients get disconnected but the IMAP works fine and we can’t get that one POP3 guy on the phone to say if that one is working. And you can’t just “pick one” unless it’s pop3, because of older clients out there.

Not saying that this is not a worthy effort, but it has costs not just for the people doing the actual work.

Yoav