IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jmap] Submission

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 20 April 2017 04:14 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 8D28E129458 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 21:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.226
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 SvYL0fbVa1Jc for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 21:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (w6.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 4AB181286B2 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 21:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 4340 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2017 04:14:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 20 Apr 2017 04:14:34 -0000
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 04:14:12 -0000
Message-ID: <20170420041412.12322.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: jmap@ietf.org
Cc: mellon@fugue.com
In-Reply-To: <FE64AF98-AE3A-4A04-83F4-A9B97ABF316D@fugue.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/TpVJ3_Zv4zOtahqXfNQT9CmwSzs>
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 04:14:37 -0000

In article <FE64AF98-AE3A-4A04-83F4-A9B97ABF316D@fugue.com> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On Apr 19, 2017, at 10:30 PM, Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com> wrote:
>> Improved bounce handling could make a good JMAP extension.
>
>That is the rathole IMAP went down.   The reason I'm advocating for doing this in the base spec is that then we don't have to tolerate clients that
>don't do the extension.   But the complexities that you mention are worth consideration—I'm saying this not to entirely disagree with you, but to
>advocate that we at least consider doing this in the base spec.

Having written some bounce processors for mailing list software, I can
assure you that improved bounce handling is a rathole all of its own.
You can handle all of the RFC compliant DSNs and such, and you're
about 1/3 of the way there.

It has been my impression that we want jmap to do what imap and submit
do, but not that we want to try and fix SMTP's problems.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email