IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 15 November 2016 00:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 9758C1294CF for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:30:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 anghhVHalSXO for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:30:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 343BF129559 for <imapext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:30:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id f82so133491741wmf.1 for <imapext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:30:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0cq23i4tSvw5NbOehye/rEeAbNRA0AH4+qg5ZKJHnuA=; b=wH6Jy9qSLmP8Hprmjo8VNwvQTE+BZalKzGx8MJZJsOz547RfQXd/2rJnnBAme8UtR7 WirjgN4l1BszxvZnJsu8yhaMQ6L+cuOogIHWI/Ydhr9/5l6PLBvZUP2HjtUji3fKoaru sUMhvJaCHpVzwdl7WwpXl4bH1JUxR5l41liGKp0/YtZAcDJ4qzDGOPrtCjGIYV/zk+DC 2dCymH/MyqOkQsMCM7URtiCdX2oyFjTURzagDr/I5o1a0u7rwxpbmcfK8RjjditvdK1h wkQwp7mRHq6mFuiAculKGmtPzS4xx4emQx/olljDzqTgplsslEXO0cl9cLjjiT6hPErT U3SA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0cq23i4tSvw5NbOehye/rEeAbNRA0AH4+qg5ZKJHnuA=; b=Le0jJaUrIWBJIHL0/k3oDLfMcJiJtn7Ho6xKi+amftj84dvlzwUDNdkt2JXFSBesHD PqCmtb7BDjtp6U/zw3iotxe8KMo6zyidD3Urc8H/D8w5s70dvzwaX8vrHp7j4f8V/lsm 0k6Bn7AEyV3mEFIrvaXGQctSAVVou0O8Hxiy2zKCdiTF9MgHZNARdvmZnPPoSFfr3MrC nvkHKzE6DpM8jWCM07olAaauWIGBM4byxne9E/IJ8VJFhEX1pyP38ycedHrTSZI4cuVb JvJzCTEt3JFCTDVh4FIdeZ0iuDVV2BHuEnL+WceOJw7pKTZJKY3JpVhGnpBlbzSJ0OWP B3hw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcA226fheGkKq4ddE4DTtQJrOhZK2oo5BAbdqkhRpmIhXQrGSocKeTrQG6zYuTpE6YCkzsH0Togg9tvqw==
X-Received: by 10.25.28.197 with SMTP id c188mr7703741lfc.152.1479169855709; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:30:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.28.15 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:30:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <582A5594.5080008@gmail.com>
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>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:30:14 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1m2AibTjYzuXa=Oa1QRA--bYi8xJ9DungvDmV9tY5erAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/OuQmPvLAKvYc9D4CKSjPoWO1xo4>
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org, "imapext@ietf.org" <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: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:30:59 -0000

Making offline support a "client issue" means that every client will
do it differently, and there will be no hooks in the protocol to make
it easy/consistent.   Why _wouldn't_ you want to document offline
support?

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (lots of stuff ...)
>
> Ned: YES - YES.
>
> I have felt that way for years.
>
> In response to to Ted's concerns about off-line.
>
> I use SeaMonkey (a Thunderbird spin) for my email. When I setup a mail
> account with it, one of the options is for it to cache the email account for
> offline usage.
>
> I would think this is mostly a client issue. In a future protocol, when
> checking for new message data, pull all of the summary data, and optionally
> all of the body parts. Its a client issue. Save the data, or not. If you
> pull it all, then the client is free to save it, or not.
>
>
> --
>
> Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)
> DouglasRoyer@gmail.com
> 714-989-6135
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-smtp mailing list
> ietf-smtp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email