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

Alexey Melnikov <> Wed, 09 November 2016 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2226129619 for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:42:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.498
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mZWwJXJd3smg for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:42:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFFE12960D for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:42:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1478716960;; s=june2016;; bh=XMzhcQmvvkgBpOgLBroyOTp3VpJUURQDCZ2XZewBm54=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=YEHxeDZ7NlZjNLrP8rJXY5DRTbqnAUEobGPRDhpKhYm5uQ1mEjBPZBcPWvgdt4mNwO/lBp 9WRDvIjagA/aJhG1vz7B35mdHw7v3tsHdcBFQq3j7O24QFYkYG/cjl8fKFANT2nbx2CQkl Q9HJS1rqWWvKyqBCXIRQYroJPAVJmLA=;
Received: from [] ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 18:42:39 +0000
References: <> <> <56DA516EAC53C07E3F453BA6@JcK-HP8200> <> <> <5F4EE3F805C40EF25D1E0E57@JcK-HP8200> <>
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 18:42:22 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: 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: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 18:42:42 -0000

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.