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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 09/11/2016 18:22, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> John C Klensin writes:
>> But, unless we can get rid of IMAP (and some of the
>> functionality, like disconnected mode, that can't obviously be
>> supported over a purely HTTPS/JSON interface) entirely, it seems
>> to me that an HTTPS/JOSN approach is additive, requiring the
>> mail environment to support both it and IMAP for (at least) a
>> very long time.
>
> Not at all. There are many, many clients that serve a very small 
> audience and need only one protocol.
>
> It has been mentioned on this list that a two-digit number of clients 
> account for >99% of people's usage, and at another time that around a 
> thousand different clients used a particular IMAP extension on a 
> particular day at gmail. That's quite a difference, and my guess is 
> that a big part of that is programs that implement someone's business 
> logic and act on at most a handful of mail accounts. Those programs 
> need to be simple to write.
Agreed. I think there are applications which might still be easier to 
write using IMAP. Some applications might find JMAP to be easier.