IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> Tue, 25 April 2017 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <brong@fastmail.fm>
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 965971319CA for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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=fastmail.fm header.b=g7PwOW2/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Y5l5bxYU
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 9BI0kH8TpgE8 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 071411319BD for <jmap@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 715A620A1F for <jmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:56:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web4 ([10.202.2.214]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:56:09 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=RRtFzSJaan1trxIEJIKMs4fOYCAwQ Ww2U4aCXuHiLEk=; b=g7PwOW2/ZHwQP0AvE3hi/0NX1q+ht0nlj/e22dWn6jLss P5qhkQqU6PKfWPTQauoKujjpqc62RBDmRynK+wusCLepT/CIjcSIYlj6nFFpRYnp KsLSZyQ7r6lmA0RCxZP7JXqRTlrYls1fB4pA3Ihjld2PjxScY9V0ITDjBP1SAgMF I+PVZjq41krK/cvs6gPvdqMESbasKi4EpmulvFqZmPmm5mftq/SE7p+q9LUyTsSJ 6fsl/zE1LNXd+oIvtibIA+PtGFpB8fFt5KDAsK9c+o0d0pRZXdnafqDH/7W9Z6N1 3LQCJrwVTtp+3bXzOz7F/8IuP0m/bLpWyoaQr5ZSA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=RRtFzS Jaan1trxIEJIKMs4fOYCAwQWw2U4aCXuHiLEk=; b=Y5l5bxYUWnsa04EClQw1pY f508/lETYLLYLbNGrWy0aOHBpmb8AWM6ZgxY6AafRPUOfsTA858X5MJSB8DMm0Yk lYJUb+R4NmW2gF5BZyfE9ptsSARfosKhs97VOoN9MLtXtgqO7z5/YSjwlbp3Q8sb Hqr0XsX1YhWlZb4NcE7tXrPtfjLbGoLMMnwKd7n7PWHQBVYGBKILGfKZpPsKloar 2enRA7POaYSS9DV+0IMLb3XHm5fdj1fibGDMlPQFyvFJnf8C8Bq4E1Aeabz+z4QC LyBiFGBRJJkcbVvq0c9jXnP6JTWzVLZXito3QbaqKHt/FJ5e3WzMy+sed38HNrQQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:-eT-WJYY6WEs6A5rpAo9EQTuhqFm-L0zP86g1Iicx5xgrAUzdmwp8g>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 4F66FBAB6F; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:56:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1493099769.3023399.955193288.6D0312CC@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
To: jmap@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-29d47332
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:56:09 +1000
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>
In-Reply-To: <D35A79C2-3918-4BB7-B97D-D56CA7548DCD@oracle.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/ZZeUueN0wboIeLhXq8yP4mR58fc>
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 05:56:12 -0000

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, at 11:41, Chris Newman wrote:
> True, if the WG finds rough consensus around the outbox model despite my 
> objections, then my implementation will have an always-empty outbox as 
> that's the only way to implement it without infrastructure disruption. 
> I'd prefer a JMAP design that allows me to provide delivery status UX 
> without infrastructure disruption.

Ahh, I see you already replied with this.  Yeah, always-empty outbox is my first plan too as a server implementer.  It's what I did for the proxy, since it doesn't have reliable storage.

The reason to hold email in the outbox temporarily is to implement both undo-send and delayed send, both of which are popular features in new mail clients.  We'll definitely do outbox-as-queue at FastMail eventually.

Bron.




-- 
  Bron Gondwana
  brong@fastmail.fm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email