Re: [imap5] Designing a new replacement protocol for IMAP

[Mark Crispin <[e-mail]>]

I will say this once. Then I will go back to rolling on the floor laughing
at the extremely naive things that certain individuals post here.

On Mon Feb 13 2012 07:20:45 GMT-0800 (PST), Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> What is more anyone implementing more than one
> protocol in their client (e.g. IMAP, CalDAV and CardDAV) would only
> have to implement that once, albeit with some minor differences in
> regard to how to get protocol specific pieces for registering for
> notifications.

This should be self-evident, as is this statement:

> Frankly, anyone who has a reasonably solid IMAP4 implementation today
> is going to question the need to work on something new, particularly
> if that something new brings nothing to the table (and simply fixing
> interop problems will probably not be seen as something "new").

The IMAP5 talk is stunning and laughable in two ways. One is it that it
seeks to make IMAP "simpler". The other is that it seeks to expand its
scope to be Exchange.

Unstated, but evident, is a third aspect: the naive notion that a protocol
can be replaced without repeating the work that went into the original.
History shows that the effort in any replacement is quite a bit greater.

You can't escape that work no matter smart you think you are, or how much
better your knowledge and tools are.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.