Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP
Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmail.com> Wed, 26 April 2017 23:04 UTC
Return-Path: <neilj@fastmail.com>
X-Original-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E5E1294D8 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.com header.b=C/UpGWpy; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Hq5tvoMa
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 av6bzbmyLvIW for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DD2E1294C5 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from betaweb1.internal (betaweb1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.10]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59EB21E69 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:04:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from betaweb1 ([::ffff:10.202.2.10]) by betaweb1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:04:43 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.com; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=YcsmvbvQnxioZ4/m48BRiZAKcta+k OHHtBeaPtjdDzo=; b=C/UpGWpyH80SC1mzpOwODSdRLCiD3+vJV5DZB8z2VdC/J HzJ3sI1oFxVog3P5gDDHwf9vxd1M233eGMRpBg2LMIa4awUloyMrWeDlidOY0QGN RyXRsK7iyaz+GNCYX+nvsj1GnD8NXibkYLRsJPJCVIZT82/RgPqOUcimnyZMC+Xb EFHYjjhWputlbaHQPmdcKgaGhL56TiGxwfPqCC0z8cKMweGtgF4iG9Vef/zfU0go 2YVQ+HINwK3LNj5fuc3zzEJeHpf9LWEmmK/InI6V54yryx00fLkH92M3cTB+UDOw sN2dbIgwV5h3ViEEcyBMJBA73Dut3EoheBPVrW8aw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Ycsmvb vQnxioZ4/m48BRiZAKcta+kOHHtBeaPtjdDzo=; b=Hq5tvoMa/y1JAU88SYFWe5 J9/o8RqbljWKh1xL8g+bz7NUygNv3Yfp50ZsUJr5GsTvn1We8pmsUoa96pOmzBWa xi1Yk8gAmsgSPqklh6/CYOF7ekygiTrvDecQuZ5qWlz4FfKG1TRj+bVN4U4943FR ib9o0zs9oWTQob/3XKcEYDNVuRfCdBo/yzskKFoZtTiUHoOx3Ca7voJBuiUAsgEZ /AuA2xpItgzdBBDu05tcC+tdpdsEQkl37U53QanQ4YAXrWAELuqYOPWQAzssgSr3 tDAZOhbgCihM/KDkBMfH3e00LGMEsx69CTxvu7wkMKYlxX/Fa/1hr8aLiinKOP3g ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:iycBWS94OTIbg-zbISYtG4tlhW170V3OO4EC3aE0ryyacS5dquTo2A>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 67A88E27D8; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:04:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1493247883.1296252.957528008.3E96BD8F@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmail.com>
To: jmap@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_149324788312962521"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-843b6574
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6uYFAwLBRzN9RmvirHAGTX8B6eWR4Vcx8yJ05UXG7QMWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <em8b177018-4769-44ea-b033-90bd8155d11b@bodybag> <46F700A6-C2B1-488B-A8B4-6ACD45B03C31@oracle.com> <CABa8R6uYFAwLBRzN9RmvirHAGTX8B6eWR4Vcx8yJ05UXG7QMWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:04:43 +0000
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/6LOroxgmEytRJrn9Qepg3-snrIA>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP
X-BeenThere: jmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: JSON Message Access Protocol <jmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:jmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:04:47 -0000
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, at 10:25 PM, Brandon Long wrote: > But, if all JMAP is is a proxy of existing protocols, then it seems > like an expensive undertaking for little gain. Agreed. JMAP is not just a proxy. We have implemented a proxy[1] to test with, but it's not stateless (in fact quite heavyweight), as it needs to build indexes to provide features that are not available in the protocols it's proxying through to. The goal with designing JMAP has been to make it possible to implement JMAP and IMAP interfaces to the same backend mail store (so someone could happily use both an IMAP client and a JMAP client concurrently and see a consistent view of their data). We know the current draft achieves this, because there's a pretty complete implementation of the current draft in Cyrus[2]. This is a necessary property for having a migration path, however it still gives flexibility to fix the many deficiencies of the current standards. Neil. Links: 1. https://proxy.jmap.io/ 2. http://cyrusimap.org/imap/download/installation/http/jmap.html
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Ted Lemon
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Ted Lemon
- [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Adrien de Croy
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Bron Gondwana
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Bron Gondwana
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Adrien de Croy
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Ted Lemon
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Ted Lemon
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Ned Freed
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Ted Lemon
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Bron Gondwana
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Ned Freed
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Ned Freed
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Ted Lemon
- [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend without ou… Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Brandon Long
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Brandon Long
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Adrien de Croy
- Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP Ned Freed
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Ned Freed
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Neil Jenkins
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Chris Newman
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… ajay
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… xn--l1b0cxc
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… xn--l1b0cxc
- Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend withou… Neil Jenkins