IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jmap] Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 25 April 2017 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 912AA12785F for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 8W9_Ccpsyd-j for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABF721205F0 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id c45so152990060qtb.1 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=nuZTtPXHCc5YeYNTzS7bvEAcaGMXfGyaJy4/PS5azIY=; b=Zm7XgWWFiuFliMg0pHeHh62UU2G87twuiwr09sB3jaoUkZfgqeAdtEhCfVsc6GC/KV QFfOCRe8Q0NKpOPBwyB+MIcqp8SUpOKGSTd0jgpkXlxviZhd/KV2+7X1d/9WWpauJD5W Y2+R1rkNlGgoasgXv95is5FsQ/1ehZbNonnL3s4BdJCfPuuDxtaM5/XVpkCzXCP6H4CA 7F8rpYfL0/rj0C7+RCa9RGURfR+KJuHaoELhuctRdqUTomsEQOnnhOHFD12ZLKl6c4nl r3IqHa+UBb4mGbWpKyvJKgNmSi7scbqqeCXMl/69mY1vRH13RhMQoPl76pLHmKUFDLQ3 hgFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=nuZTtPXHCc5YeYNTzS7bvEAcaGMXfGyaJy4/PS5azIY=; b=EM5HgidS3rPrBmiGAGjTY5YpwNcZOu6wGKZ378sfNKEvUkZRWKk8aZLpPtHc8/Nxd2 LPKtaW1B4fyZpqlRXv9r48S0PTISei+2SWvtN+sRc1KCCHqU5ny4QV1XFFitEWkGk/ZS /RiZoGIAQ8J16hyGUHmwCZQIF11IxF+DmKn7yarZYGGg/QcfmUuEfqyxTRQEQE6Zlvs4 itS9MWbYXW+TSirsJGUNFIdEsYHWc+vJl3zIiW/kgW4jxK6MuJgR9Sj9+oEtr9c5spGc 1Ym9VVcaDKm8CUdYKNW+CwUFiJwWQcB1LbL9fWpBStFP3HSquq197nwmYrZxvMvRRELq ZOXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6ZaSlbn4ev4Nm/SMUvOAU5cSCBkmu6osF6Xv0RyEy5OXnf84GN ZnnMLYB0m+QzZA==
X-Received: by 10.237.53.236 with SMTP id d41mr36892863qte.158.1493161539923; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-pro-6.home (pool-108-31-94-75.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.31.94.75]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p64sm16184671qkc.3.2017.04.25.16.05.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <6E855C48-EAAE-478B-93A5-59F7261E3467@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_60FB98E8-0690-498F-A7F6-20CBA1880971"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:05:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <33553450-82F4-4CB4-8679-C9F52D8A8839@oracle.com>
Cc: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>, jmap@ietf.org
To: Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com>
References: <em8b177018-4769-44ea-b033-90bd8155d11b@bodybag> <46F700A6-C2B1-488B-A8B4-6ACD45B03C31@oracle.com> <CFC38D13-0CB2-4ABF-9403-DF0F773314B7@fugue.com> <D35A79C2-3918-4BB7-B97D-D56CA7548DCD@oracle.com> <1493099769.3023399.955193288.6D0312CC@webmail.messagingengine.com> <33553450-82F4-4CB4-8679-C9F52D8A8839@oracle.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/FbwFisfbjLgvq9JD2joiMpgggd4>
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: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 23:05:43 -0000

On Apr 25, 2017, at 7:01 PM, Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com> wrote:
> So given we have at least two server implementers on the list who will do always-empty outbox for the first implementation, I think that begs the question of what's the more important feature for JMAP to offer:
> A) outbox model
> B) undo send and delayed send

Obviously the cure is to combine the sent folder and the outbox...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email