IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 26 April 2017 14:40 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 EA038129C6B for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 I9t6NKmOwns9 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (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 8220012EB28 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id m36so2312674qtb.0 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:39:31 -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=rywM7p3HVI/WbmKqvz1wraKArr1ISE39Xfiip6e9vfk=; b=TfWRRWsCK4v2tVTP1A65vyjHXZbs1kqTQaHhNZ+K09i7Sen/gsm9tM7RFYHaMJ1evX ib07lGQQ4yyxJp5g4AZuJuX90aofyrBxlS7aOKMmYfSws3f7IzRfVEcHkjiGSblMlKlg +GD1P0vR03oivFUVn3Huz/PLUxV1ixXlDG1n/L00ZrCckpKf9xrHumREmyBhMHaZ2G+Z FSpqDEexKDT6kFJ+UZwZ+NsE0pIdeuMEXWbiTWoudZWjMPFDszRiw7LV/3KmAgvV9rS+ FxZ0aOzbL1mxgYUVrcq7DQS5YXFdl996GBw1Kwy3qKX82IIrg7CRWa4hxr3bUN7xG3ty 21CA==
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=rywM7p3HVI/WbmKqvz1wraKArr1ISE39Xfiip6e9vfk=; b=sXVz+A6kewXzR/tni0O5dmsQtwlZR5agbJdDAcOduJR/btQoZzk5DnBop4H628jM/x tLZNJcmcSDW27vdhFUCFT721G5ts+yWWBOLrZfBplISThzDpWPVqfcIfEnXWaEPJ+wKp yk2qjMK7NNx/14Vmyt620ru2FsuPfMbLVAAMooD2o7EwOu7eRzIjqrBKO82XrDsxDTVm gFJoWjIMQBDcGjsTxCkUBVk4d0v3CZahCnXIgrtcEdBINLN2z2BCi1GiC4jXGY3KndfK M2QcJ3STn/lTfsxw4aBcCTLCg0iLUaEzd97OnoephA1UWy0+qJMS9koHqCmR14Kx8fzE imBQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6fZAUp0wf65gW6Owvaoee9CS6faK1U7RN1jgj9zAMfKmN1Y3yd Fbjmzgn6+ON03g==
X-Received: by 10.237.36.212 with SMTP id u20mr65546qtc.217.1493217570712; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:39:30 -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 o91sm285422qte.42.2017.04.26.07.39.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <4488B4E2-53A0-44E4-911A-3A67B7EF67FC@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4AAEA0E8-8EAB-400F-9FB4-A90FFCDCE3A3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:39:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <01QDMH1QNOUK00008D@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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/L7SLW_WPFOKORneJcE-8GsALtqM>
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 14:40:10 -0000

On Apr 26, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:
> Now take these semantics and multiply them by the number of users you have,
> which can be in the many millions. And while sometimes you can treat
> this as single, system-wide queue for monitoring purposes, sometimes
> you'll need to lookup and probably monitor on a per-user basis.

Of course, when the user calls in with a problem with their email, the fact that all the information about that user's email is in their unique mail store is kind of convenient.   If there is a systemic problem with mail delivery, you would need different tools to notice it.   I don't see how one or the other of these approaches is clearly superior; what is true is that the latter approach is what people are used to.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email