IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmail.com> Tue, 25 April 2017 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <neilj@fastmail.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 6CA171319A4 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:47:09 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.com header.b=Sdgu2tMK; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=FI1FiDWG
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 G-J0EL-wIqvP for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:47:08 -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 3B1B81319A2 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from betaweb1.internal (betaweb1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.10]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A705820B5B for <jmap@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:47:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from betaweb1 ([::ffff:10.202.2.10]) by betaweb1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:47:07 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.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=YVZRBvtwOXz2itL+nwgtKoHLmGqE7 X7r+uhIn5TiEiA=; b=Sdgu2tMKujyRIyX60BnPYPbj0NnkIG4zN5F0M85tuOEva DeFBCCMNN4H2/Cvue85NglXFqH2USVpoO9ZI5KAGeGriQEysBmbWYzUfb4stE2J0 6bPwQuHbAQwp1ZTCRAWD/QwnisDuFws1UOmdvLEBTY3KSfoJQv0aTDSH3BaLfGeQ Yzfrq9BZBANXJcrzPWew5XZxL34AOSklC4v7q+i47qJ59eAbinDk7OF1em0NVNoK qJLD/OeoC9HxTvdbVkMVyahTDxvpDNd91YUEgRSR62eKdu0kYVeQFva7aW4Sq/DT XojTPcA7gij39MTs7QYNkHdVdNg/9GpCQPNFTcXPg==
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=YVZRBv twOXz2itL+nwgtKoHLmGqE7X7r+uhIn5TiEiA=; b=FI1FiDWGAduR2s9etMOh9O 7QbsdmsCu3irpWxSlsaB2pANVBGs12H6V2qef1uSXTus5LUixirxLOnBVECs8ZeS zMwqhWTt1/E4nuHuV42z8b/lc1XclMiWDuzFr8dJ6fhLsMNGVsyA6fMlD9z4wSsX gbSTI9AyYPJl2vLsW/YErtvpNoI2LZkjMmb4KGN83TqsRtdOw9Cy+lnM+KR04giV f8yLEziF5vZoG9aUCEpsidWZsIu1WrIzXB1xvOUo5syKf2bnH3RHYAAAsE594MH1 fKkz5lxtBp2wFeLLPXCxwAcs6x0BGr9v2otNOH8lYE9o1cuk3X8kxO2rJWjABVvg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:m6r-WAQ4ak0JPSMJkffeA5TqgDsIauWWMm1wcH3UVJr_xbQCboUXlA>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 726D0E2342; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:47:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1493084827.2833415.955057496.1E8325CA@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmail.com>
To: jmap@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_149308482728334154"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-77cb7ee4
In-Reply-To: <D35A79C2-3918-4BB7-B97D-D56CA7548DCD@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>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:47:07 +1000
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/blUSWWicHBibApnL0vQcwBtaRgI>
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 01:47:09 -0000

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, at 11:41 AM, Chris Newman wrote:
> Yes, this has been a common problem in design of mail
> protocols. If you> have any ideas on how to keep the mail client authors who think more
> about UX issues engaged in the JMAP standardization debate, I'd love
> to> hear them.

As it happens I lead UX for FastMail, and the other proposed co-editor
of the JMAP Mail spec is also a client author. So I'm hopeful that JMAP
may do slightly better in this regards than some previous protocol
design work.
Neil.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email