IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imap5] Feature set? - was Re: Designing a new replacement protocol for IMAP

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Fri, 24 February 2012 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.com>
X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B54021F8740 for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:48:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AWzu5T7A1ajc for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:48:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E7121F8745 for <imap5@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:48:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qcsq13 with SMTP id q13so710314qcs.31 for <imap5@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:48:24 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blong@google.com designates 10.229.76.195 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.229.76.195;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blong@google.com designates 10.229.76.195 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blong@google.com; dkim=pass header.i=blong@google.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.229.76.195]) by 10.229.76.195 with SMTP id d3mr3050010qck.40.1330112903998 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:48:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=41tsgHxYadRCSM8MStKTbmhi3DqY0ynJZGL8Zp/i4w8=; b=wioQoh5dOLDqQ89OHhur9rBOdZHg3aTpyQfbIK02WO50AsD5dMTegWQkeUlLBzD2Eq 1imZSdKFv4eKBQIShdVtxv4SHIc0ChuhJBCH0DtetncEQQszSlAW7P7yErc2+ZgsN7ZG Rr7TWt3e/XS+RWxbh3BWWsH9jKoOHxeYB93WY=
Received: by 10.229.76.195 with SMTP id d3mr2517924qck.40.1330112903904; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:48:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.76.195 with SMTP id d3mr2517911qck.40.1330112903646; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:48:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.216.201 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:48:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F4751C0.20709@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
References: <3077.1329391344.173214@puncture> <4F3CEB35.9080200@qbik.com> <1329394296.953.140661037317197@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4F3CFD35.10501@qbik.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202161626400.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4F3D6E57.8010301@qbik.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202171127330.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4F3F4F8F.3040601@qbik.com> <1329550573.30138.140661038121885@webmail.messagingengine.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202191832430.12769@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20120219192604.GA11323@launde.brong.net> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202201048480.31357@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4F465269.1040901@flaska.net> <4F465EBC.7090206@att.com> <16456.1330038954.623322@puncture> <CABa8R6vqMQYRJp-3zpA-GwzKfGTToXTbiGFssHF+375qdRcmYw@mail.gmail.com> <4F4751C0.20709@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:48:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CABa8R6tFA2DFW6JMzASDf1Nhchs+ZZGd0bC9Qtv1c3DtyeSHKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkpIfHLuhhuRH8XVYhY7qSWTFVq579JQAQ3K3O8lUppkbi4xn2lI5uyv6MPmqpy7av7TJqOclfEVZhgNoPSfwa2fMcmYUWAY4JYMTDpN8hbh0NNqDiVMX9ssfEhlu5tBFlXRxNo
Cc: imap5@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [imap5] Feature set? - was Re: Designing a new replacement protocol for IMAP
X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imap5>, <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imap5>
List-Post: <mailto:imap5@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5>, <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:48:25 -0000

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen
<arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> wrote:
> On 02/24/2012 01:09 AM, Brandon Long wrote:
>> Of course, if we aren't parsing the messages on the server, we have to
>> ask why we're implementing IMAP5 and not POP4
>
> Some time ago you wrote that IMAP is the de facto API for talking to
> gmail. I understand that you offer POP too, but IMAP's what people use,
> right?

Yes.  For simple backups / migrations, they'll tend to use POP which
is easier to deal with, but for anything that requires actually
writing to the store or getting specific pieces of information,
performing searches, obviously IMAP is the better choice.

I was being mostly facetious about POP4.  There may be an argument for
a simpler protocol which does 2-way syncing in a log-like fashion with
a side-order of mail sending.  That's essentially what the Android
Gmail client uses (our own http based two-way sync based on actual
changes going across).  But, I tend to be a believer in the off-line
syncing clients instead of the always connected ones.

Brandon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email