IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jmap] message vs. annotation

Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmail.com> Wed, 05 April 2017 05:43 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 A4288126C26 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 22:43:37 -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=jFVfDgBy; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=VMran4w4
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 hiKPo7zyyRqT for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 22:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD008126C22 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 22:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from betaweb1.internal (betaweb1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.10]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323F420BAA for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 01:43:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from betaweb1 ([::ffff:10.202.2.10]) by betaweb1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 05 Apr 2017 01:43:34 -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=8abaL88VQ7sXqhKq3bPDoSizQqe8V d5FxU+gNVBrpoI=; b=jFVfDgByJ6mEV5YVAxWsnBkq0dl7C3vtQhpolDb+fm5ex Wowk/soXnwiUfj9m4KUTz3r0hRtNMJKw1PqFLvkBJCadrYlKBx9Of9//FXaJUDpx SJhgB2g7QgKqjE0OOyWbWIoRPiJ9D51kH+vDD4VBQFO6tAQGiAkhdwaGevB4FE2Z Grzmnu/uDTXkXLebGUqDn7C3EgwelNgjkNJzhJTOEKmXBAYkjNH27K8T2Hh5Jaca Extvot8pW2nC1rQWA3i9pfH6eCdS6+h3nOpZQZm14DXADAZYRVqLWmoqlWfj596o YclnblQeHC5rqfuNMyxPqVrnWt58IlSp+VDVVBZ2Q==
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=8abaL8 8VQ7sXqhKq3bPDoSizQqe8Vd5FxU+gNVBrpoI=; b=VMran4w4LqeydsO/GmhvwR 6+sbWO9HQomYyJfKj6+YmWOb6hh7PbXK7HWOYJ0ykxdkUyTIJ+SzSF+zsU/UqMjx 1+1gfS7jfXd918UU8oLyrASdtHRq4UmT2zQhna4M0H9tF5Fa95uxx9WtjArVGHbd P60mgcUXKYhfW6B60EW+ot61t+CAdLFGEI56YWn575l4gmZyQW8N8eNUrTPSrmY0 jLdjSBxtlVikAvdjTOTPbPdsunX8n9G4zF+36TdHH7vtW2clRcmHRx6YLAqZCOtN P7+i9jSbtp/Arqns79Mt0XlgrguAX28QzeFC6g4xLFmWfLqG5T9ea9bg2gBaC0Ew ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:BoTkWKX353fvNGAhA-hZ6K0-G5ommDk6QrMn_U6yBwsoqeWiaZ0yKA>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id F2472E2561; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 01:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1491371013.1386002.934634464.79C9C1F7@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="_----------=_149137101313860020"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-c4fccc2b
References: <148716911729.17277.15371202023742081890.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <b7ec34d3-3aaf-82af-3663-5b0966c83ff0@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <b7ec34d3-3aaf-82af-3663-5b0966c83ff0@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:43:33 -0500
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/AjXOIOOikyCXNVv6rZI2Fw0hp8k>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] message vs. annotation
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, 05 Apr 2017 05:43:37 -0000

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, at 06:23 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> An environment like this can  be powerful and very appealing.  The

> challenge tends to be staying practical:  With no effort at all it

> devolves into an abstract computer science exercise.



This is the key here. While mailboxes, keywords and annotations could be
viewed as conceptually the same thing and so combined into one perfectly
abstract construct, I strongly believe that to do so would be a mistake.
It would make it harder for client authors to understand and use, harder
to implement efficiently on the server, and harder to map backwards
compatibility to IMAP.


Neil.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email