Re: [Jmap] IMAP transition

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 08 May 2017 13:26 UTC

To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, jmap@ietf.org
References: <20170507221925.16868.qmail@ary.lan>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <406fb88e-6360-675a-0965-da67d2ec6548@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 07:26:40 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170507221925.16868.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/04eobzWaacGdWDAkXMqepW8fw9k>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] IMAP transition
Precedence: list

On 5/7/2017 4:19 PM, John Levine wrote:
> Keep in mind that Exchange and Gmail both provide IMAP servers for
> people who want them, and that Google apps for education is free.  So
> this is a decision to stop running their own data center, not one to
> give up on IMAP.


Sorry I was not clear enough.  My question to the list was:

> Discussion about jmap has been about improvements over imap.  Perhaps it should include a wider scope to improve likelihood of adoption? 

The CMU event was intended as a trigger to the question:

      There is a market for mail server access that is larger than IMAP, 
involving one or more other protocols.

      Perhaps the jmap effort should consider features considered 
important in that larger market, in order to make jmap more broadly 
appealing (and useful)?


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net