IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 26 April 2017 14:56 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 21BF612EBEB for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 dmoUqHJlqEwO for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com (mail-qk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (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 DBDEA12EB86 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id y63so2881820qkd.1 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:56:20 -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=5JxaSqJZr29ml5tq8F7qLZv2ebOoVC+AeRHZmLWQA4Q=; b=rKTCCqEJRuRIqWNbS6MgmM4aBPLA6VV2lelVEZnLA2R/Aq/V/j+9diS9Jd8L3xTYps 4+Jh1SEQpnLgytO5maU4VDi5wb/DObTEilWneWwoutNfbr2fWWinnvTT5i0PT+AwLFIL CfXy8wiGhmB4WaKuKpWUM8Y7Rvt4TIbrktlexGad2xOakCbasuXKhhkh4+jEk+TYQgWh 7KMb2HkVhqcJg4pnbLsWbzT5oPlnp5Z36xqz82p6cc5Xl8hBhvXvBcHMe9xOfkyCdhKG gAqnfBCfi6XeI9vbOBnm+Xk5CoaJPLCezOtVoOETDI7zG26icnePZvr56wmLe4Nkk+EL nHjQ==
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=5JxaSqJZr29ml5tq8F7qLZv2ebOoVC+AeRHZmLWQA4Q=; b=eGcnJY/hKaSTMxUHfWnv3KvYWHVloPGe25RHJ/Nvjt/5kBD0WmtEJKict2XzSaviUU cLUdT2hcKjALdmAZnpCX/W/rzMW2Yg3W8trOtm7Zv1ZkiXVBlLWJocCBpq7i/aejCapT R6M4ylx5WupSdZGh3KEB1lnlr0X7io1Yb+2fxbXXGVlJ11euVY8/T9iQvK2FSeqvQara 46Ev91vo47PFfvXc5r4ckGVW+QK8RD+6gWokFjTWHfi6Nm5l76xCpnG9KKn4cjCNrBT6 KTcve3VI7VDMJiBTfAdr3cim3cxL+eeCQTNSupnREadHum3tNU2Vql9cwREnn5+7p3n3 fL5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4CqiZXtS7+x7ryCUBXq3H8bYEG4MavrV34s0QCtX2gTe/1qTZT sANV80IMP9anWA==
X-Received: by 10.55.87.132 with SMTP id l126mr153454qkb.29.1493218580047; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:56:20 -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 p48sm348977qte.4.2017.04.26.07.56.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <15F2FFD3-2789-49A1-A527-DBE717CF6733@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0FA82A24-8E5A-4121-8E6D-20FF3EA16B9C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:56:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: <01QDMIL0HUYS00008D@mauve.mrochek.com>
Cc: Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com>, jmap@ietf.org, Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmail.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.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> <1493163974.4122214.956244160.6735E49C@webmail.messagingengine.com> <EDCC6149-9222-468E-A17B-DDBA88A52D95@oracle.com> <01QDMH1QNOUK00008D@mauve.mrochek.com> <4488B4E2-53A0-44E4-911A-3A67B7EF67FC@fugue.com> <01QDMIL0HUYS00008D@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/JwhXIRFLW4RyAKODniqiM6MF360>
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 14:56:23 -0000

On Apr 26, 2017, at 10:41 AM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:
> Actually, it offers no utility whatsoever. If you provide the ability to answer
> such queries at high scale, you do it based on trasactional information
> produced by the message transport infrastructure. This information is fed into
> some kind of database that lets you lookup whatever you want for whatever
> combination of sender, recipient, time window, etc. you want to support.
> 
> You most certainly don't want to do it by accessing the mailstores. They
> carry enough load as it is; using them to handle a problem that's easily
> separable makes no sense.
> 
> There's also a nontrivial security separation concern here. The access rights
> associated with being able to look at transaction data are not the same as the
> rights needed to look at message content.

These are all good points, but from this perspective then it doesn't really matter where the transaction happens as long as the database can be updated.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email