Re: [imapext] Request to form a new WG: JMAP

Julien ÉLIE <> Mon, 07 November 2016 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1291295F8 for <>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 13:56:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8MwU0Tkf6nPA for <>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 13:56:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2433012954D for <>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 13:56:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from macbook-pro-de-julien-elie.home ([]) by mwinf5d52 with ME id 59w81u00S17Lgi4039w930; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 22:56:10 +0100
X-ME-Helo: macbook-pro-de-julien-elie.home
X-ME-Auth: anVsaWVuLmVsaWU0ODdAd2FuYWRvby5mcg==
X-ME-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 22:56:10 +0100
To:, "''" <>,
References: <> <> <56DA516EAC53C07E3F453BA6@JcK-HP8200>
From: Julien ÉLIE <>
Organization: TrigoFACILE --
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 22:56:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56DA516EAC53C07E3F453BA6@JcK-HP8200>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [imapext] Request to form a new WG: JMAP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IMAP extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 21:56:15 -0000

Hi all,

> (2) Some of us believe, at least on some days, that a key reason
> why SMTP, the message formats that started with RFC 822, POP3,
> and IMAP have survived against a large number of proprietary and
> other SDO alternatives have been precisely because they operate
> in plain text, with all but IMAP using very simple
> command-argument or name:value syntax.  Are we ready to give
> that up?  Do we really need interoperability between a server
> and a captive Webmail interface?  Arguably, standards of that
> type are part of the province of the IETF only if someone is
> contemplating generic webmail clients that can interact with the
> servers of more than one organization.

My two cents here:  someone proposed 2 years ago a similar model for 
NNTP.  It was named... JNTP (Json News Transfer Protocol).

Here is its current "specification" (in French):

with even an RFC-like format:

And, as John hinted at, people get then stuck in exchanges between an 
NNTP server and a captive webnews interface like:

Since 2014, no much move for JNTP, which is still used only by his creator.
Like SMTP and IMAP, NNTP operates in plain text.  A great advantage over 
other alternatives.

> Again, just questions, but questions I think we need to ask
> carefully before standardizing yet another alternative way to do
> much the same thing.


Julien ÉLIE

« – Vous ramassez des champignons sans les connaître ?
   – Et alors ? Ce n'est pas pour les manger mais pour les vendre. »