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

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 15 November 2016 12:10 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE26124281; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 04:10:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J3veFWZ9uVnd; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 04:10:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B3112946F; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 04:10:20 -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 ([]:39889) by ppsw-40.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk []:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1c6cZ9-000Cd8-kR (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:10:19 +0000
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:10:19 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: "'imapext@ietf.org'" <imapext@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <582A5594.5080008@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1611151159170.5327@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <1478539079.1706686.780110457.75B1F9CF@webmail.messagingengine.com> <a786d82d-7134-c7bc-24ef-5dfb56e7bbac@isode.com> <56DA516EAC53C07E3F453BA6@JcK-HP8200> <58220833.4000806@gmail.com> <01Q73SYPHLDI011H9Q@mauve.mrochek.com> <5F4EE3F805C40EF25D1E0E57@JcK-HP8200> <01Q7B16YQ1IO011H9Q@mauve.mrochek.com> <582A5594.5080008@gmail.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/Mn5d-p9Tgc3TeIwaIjOLWWjAdc8>
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Subject: [imapext] offline mode, was Re: [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: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:10:23 -0000

Is everyone here using the term "offline mode" to mean the same thing?

RFC 1733 defines "offline mode" to mean POP3-style delete-from-server.
"Disconnected mode" is the term for a client that has a local cache
or mirror of what is on the server.

Approxomately no-one wants RFC 1733 offline mode. (Bah, the number of
times I have had to recover mail for someone who accidentally pointed an
offline-mode client at their account.)

How much do the necessary protocol features differ between a full-fat
disconnected mode client (a mirror on the client of the entire
account on the server) vs a poorly-connected mobile client which needs to
sync a smaller window on the account? Concurrent access to multiple
mailboxes? what else?

f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Trafalgar: Easterly or northeasterly 5 or 6, occasionally 4 at first, but 6 to
gale 8 in southeast. Moderate or rough. Fair. Good.