IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 26 April 2017 14:37 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 A983C12EAB0 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:37:03 -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 zB28k7-lLStE for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x231.google.com (mail-qk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]) (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 B6B2B129C43 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id y63so2234294qkd.1 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:34:20 -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=Lm6UVInH3OH1jD+Y23Nq9GYb5ypBnBASdglurxQf2Do=; b=VlJnESEjrpOtJKPnDAGeV2hRG7TsrecF7fKJ1HB+JEKP6lfmuY1nj+RK7jkGjKbiAs UF88xgPqw9YKuJkxN4GzkI+qFo5BgxsJvNukWMQaAPK41U9thaElJ9BkBhUeXqHJLwYW xy81Rt6FveZi1StynFWkUML+KmjBRbSKodr0ZlR4xvlgB8xncKMC+D79k5slnGSwS4q/ bnzbrHpddXrAC1vrWlk4ACSdHjLitNw9TjYQMXIlimkaxtZ82S3PW34VAN2ryzXo0uSK YVslN03CkCRpZ6BDmbTYsLqF5f6XGP6joG/uasYwBn6qLOvSQ0AzyOYF2uJrahIclLkc swoA==
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=Lm6UVInH3OH1jD+Y23Nq9GYb5ypBnBASdglurxQf2Do=; b=sF3Ji7p5DabcUVIipoT7rsXxi3sVs/XSunsmL939MJ8Zv2etAH0FyPGcir71aiAhZM dVXZI2udtcfbcjkZTsd/pxdhWBCfGmW7WJjpJr8/71ijNR40FhQ4OA322/YgRYgcfX94 v9kvrvJy1Vwegb1ZL6qI2hKxRf8/loLdzNqq0hgPK7cWvuyueOM9SeDe0aPJxwPdK8SS 03A1NsrANdpvgWLMN8/KasCzEsMA0LHZoCjkRkQ0QUabuoKa/cd3g9R1CtgoiwQl9GDq H5yERkXRrPRnqIYayxVoyDsK9mPsSTNwsDqOAieB8BCppWjx1+WvkUirBKZvxEEZnF+q VHpA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5B3ggJEE988foFcTWk/Dfetf/K2YWvG3whICizKm2sI0xrPKFW zgI4gr4ekrNSTg==
X-Received: by 10.55.81.139 with SMTP id f133mr53014qkb.125.1493217259830; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:34:19 -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 z33sm273449qta.48.2017.04.26.07.34.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <CAD1EEBF-D9D5-4478-BCC3-BAD6F6AE6616@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8CE05B60-4E3D-41B7-AF78-8EC2F6BEAEA6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:34:18 -0400
In-Reply-To: <EDCC6149-9222-468E-A17B-DDBA88A52D95@oracle.com>
Cc: Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmail.com>, jmap@ietf.org
To: Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/aWZcq3rjUnvm0s0RVVQZlWnz_zM>
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 14:37:04 -0000

On Apr 26, 2017, at 12:49 AM, Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com> wrote:
> Suppose JMAP implements a server-side outbox (aka mail queue). The JMAP client synchronizes the server-side outbox and goes offline. While the client is offline, the message gets submitted and the user decides they don't want to submit the message and delete it from the local cached outbox. Now what? Have you really simplified things by adding a server-side outbox to the mix?

Why is the message in the outbox if the user doesn't want to submit it?   It should be in the drafts folder.

It's a real problem if the outbox and the drafts folder are not synchronized between clients.   Insisting that the outbox be only on the client means that every client has a different view of the state of the mail store, even when all clients are up to date.   This is confusing and inconvenient for users.

And why is it a problem for the submit service to remove stuff from the outbox when the client isn't online?   Effectively, it's just another client making changes, something that JMAP is designed to deal with very cleanly.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email