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

Arnt Gulbrandsen <> Wed, 09 November 2016 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27592129480 for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:22:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] 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 aqNwcQIr4ml1 for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:22:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB8C129432 for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:22:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F72FA01A6; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 18:22:53 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1478715773; bh=FSjyDlLVXnFDgr6b72yIDTEkQHBhmw48dcf1RTRPuBY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=rSyCHPyaNNQFXD26H1YSTM7dmsx8+IsFqydRk+Dtpy7icgV4uHkDFnTk39sh44ASe /nmawaxOV5/dydmvL77uH0WEq94lroMYqGjV60pKMeD0SDbqzfkUB2IJ8UjxHe6cX/ Y+1eZU8jmTV39xSEEjVo9BxXCYcUqV8StzSuf9Z4=
Received: from by (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1478715772-10646-10642/11/1; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 18:22:52 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 18:22:50 +0000
User-Agent: Trojita/v0.5-9-g8961725; Qt/4.8.6; X11; Linux; Debian GNU/Linux 8.6 (jessie)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <5F4EE3F805C40EF25D1E0E57@JcK-HP8200>
References: <> <> <56DA516EAC53C07E3F453BA6@JcK-HP8200> <> <> <5F4EE3F805C40EF25D1E0E57@JcK-HP8200>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
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 18:22:57 -0000

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.