Re: [Jmap] Submission

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 721E2129BA9 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=CTZCxk9J; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=jRJ4X2/N
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 U5LPXNGPjaWM for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (www.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::4945:4343]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46758129B82 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 68607 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2017 18:04:41 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=10bfc.58f7a6b9.k1704; bh=0mmDxiCVmfKm7wo9QGfOiT7zqERo0URLXDxI5lkiWCU=; b=CTZCxk9J8aeEenFY/KcvE61cKnIi6mlYIUo8i5A0aKO0GaVlhHUl7QvsntCxpFEtA/aUcUY7doMMD4SIoi6Ax2Sp6u40uT+bxlGZOJiTNE7F+XV/bthOoTmhixMUgXeRgqGvKuvEk8C12wshSvUiVBJZIS1hHc1L9ciObjRVW17UF6jZfr+WnIAk94sMK+Oftw+2BfivRKMu+d3t6ijlLQdKqZLdIIKnnjmmc+oR7+SqrOs6mycwjqfIfZyk1myM
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=10bfc.58f7a6b9.k1704; bh=0mmDxiCVmfKm7wo9QGfOiT7zqERo0URLXDxI5lkiWCU=; b=jRJ4X2/Nap2Yj1yoYeoco+6sWYaJYkc8t5eWj3yxx6X2ArVP2L0WmQnwZbQsOrbmJFan42CpxPWgZfmeKH5yDNVywU8xnDUGfsq4yrnN9FV2ZxSScWeS3rJpVPmX9+D2isZ5EDulh4hpKAG74oMFFl7LbCpZjbljqzenEUrUUCpmaYCF85EWGd/vZjVJDIQnna8j+sZ8FU3jiFHXjTYj/WysA19nSxPF7Qq3WIgaFtegShOmScZW19vZTXOHLdIU
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 19 Apr 2017 18:04:41 -0000
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:04:40 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.20.1704191353500.43511@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Cc: jmap@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <87d1c873cf.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <20170419163429.8556.qmail@ary.lan> <87d1c873cf.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (OSX 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/InsZLb3IqgWL4Kq-oysCtqPJlFI>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] Submission
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, 19 Apr 2017 18:04:43 -0000

> I think you've convinced me that while it is surely easy to write a
> server-side envelope synthesizer, it looks hard to write a high-quality
> and robust server-side envelope sythesizer.

Right, and even then, if a client can't put parameters on the envelope, 
it's not going to be very satisfactory.  On the other hand, if you do have 
an explicit envelope with parameters, a lot of other stuff falls out 
naturally.

For example, the marinate* option that people were arguing about is the 
FUTURERELEASE extension defined in RFC 4865. with the HOLDFOR and 
HOLDUNTIL parameters.  No need to invent anything, it's already there.

I hope Ned Freed weighs in here, since he's done more hand to hand combat 
with this stuff than anyone.

R's,
John

* - as in, allow a message to marinate for a while before sending it