IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Fri, 11 November 2016 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DEE5129489 for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 03:47:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_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 feNUA_8m6VPp for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 03:47:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9E7129AC2 for <imapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 03:47:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:43653) by ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1c5AIx-000t5q-lP (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:47:35 +0000
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:47:35 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1478836665.322873.784300457.3FB705B7@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1611111136170.22672@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <1478539079.1706686.780110457.75B1F9CF@webmail.messagingengine.com> <a786d82d-7134-c7bc-24ef-5dfb56e7bbac@isode.com> <01Q7166TP70G011H9Q@mauve.mrochek.com> <b85870ed-86e0-0f97-fece-476399124e81@isode.com> <01Q74JCZZYFG00Z4TS@mauve.mrochek.com> <E99C5826138657241662E74E@JcK-HP8200> <1478836665.322873.784300457.3FB705B7@webmail.messagingengine.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/Ib1WqeiVaMxZJzDnPw2phRBjNeo>
Cc: imapext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP
X-BeenThere: imapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IMAP extensions <imapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/imapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:imapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:47:38 -0000

Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmail.com> wrote:
>
> # Message submission

A few vague thoughts...

One of the problems with separating message submission and storage is that
there are a lot of tricky error handling and state transition issues as
the message moves from Drafts -> Outbox -> Sent, rolling back properly if
sending failed, partial failures for a subset of recipients, etc. It's not
uncommon for users who have been having problems to say something like
"but the message is in my Sent folder, it must have been sent!"

Also, my experience of MUAs reporting SMTP errors to users doesn't fill me
with confidence. The servers I used to run went to some effort to avoid
SMTP-time errors as much as possible, preferring to accept and bounce.
There's lots of scope to do much better in this area.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Trafalgar: North or northwest 4 or 5. Moderate, occasionally rough for a time
in north. Showers. Good.

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status