IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jmap] Submission

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sat, 22 April 2017 01:00 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 58740129BBD for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 koH6YBUq2E5H for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:00:34 -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 7939F127698 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id y33so81511611qta.2 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:00:34 -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=OrUya+v1dvOGO7o7AZSkgykCeRcXCJlykJHgidF83eQ=; b=pREunxBxYvSw1XffReQyNydG6u3a+BBdt9R9ldCBURq8YECwIEMvj6S1aLzzNrLyhC 6AzusLSsnnh1e+pNJUwCL/h5OybFtxjBDYcz7SVHNpRsvEkYasaV4ClL0HfnfxKRmpiu XwsojxOAoThO+AQbw7DA7HISABd/li2kd/2MFVXvX+08cJLfBvv4zbmo/jmXJVSmIS7y EaubEn7+kvy/IY3oPqY3+4QcgYQ3Z67pFMAN3VPl6KOy782vD0IFKnbvH2a6g2qTJs42 5B6OIQ/W9Ag5VBgJIYx8UCkAnQfgFqhwUbwFmCt+vvMpM79TVe5ytmKqKLBZS4dz3WpD oiOw==
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=OrUya+v1dvOGO7o7AZSkgykCeRcXCJlykJHgidF83eQ=; b=dmhMV79TvznKznr1LozYGsEs25avI5nugo0pdHQewbGQxtZ8af4dxB313in312LV9S HH6DnwVN9KUcsTH1tMbmERvSJ2Z7G13fFleD/yVIaoC0ds+NR5OBklwGK2LJs33p4jsq irNk/AqK4HG06ogdMpCy/DOvgah3MPIaMj/ICw3jj3QP9bjAX4nKRRrKRiwmuL0yD78k 7kEcL8VfM4wPqI4Jgxf3TJ1kTmz6Ayu8kd2344Udie4/RCClnx3Rsza+X4LvYj0cuBp8 MJ2WkDQYTDknKLaaNJHA1XK6Zr/pTGkdYtnsU45SjXiMfGox09hEJ4E1tTrRBa/7WuTh bXlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7udP1aIfk+gUN+1J9jB52EEhW2zQRMQQOmbY0LVHT2pq+gZWEk fdvVamgEdFnSe3pMbGs=
X-Received: by 10.200.4.44 with SMTP id v44mr17921495qtg.135.1492822833666; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.30.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c26sm7556692qte.19.2017.04.21.18.00.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <915BE3FC-354F-4A2D-B33C-AC2DF40ADC21@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_16CB7953-2AAD-450E-8CFA-0DBFA72B06B7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 21:00:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <emba044018-431d-44cf-af93-4f12e5fecc29@bodybag>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, "jmap@ietf.org" <jmap@ietf.org>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
References: <emc8d121a7-bfae-4074-8de0-9716d42f680b@bodybag> <20170421231922.29225.qmail@ary.lan> <emba044018-431d-44cf-af93-4f12e5fecc29@bodybag>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/i0kWD67y5x1jh9jcBAQ4VxpeDuQ>
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: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 01:00:36 -0000

On Apr 21, 2017, at 7:30 PM, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
> I'm imagining a system where the JMAP server uses JMAP to send it the next hop as well if required, and so on, thereby avoiding the limitations of SMTP.

I really don't think this is likely.   However, that doesn't mean that fixing the first hop is a bad idea.   I suspect that what will happen is that when we are done with this work, if there is demand to improve the experience for subsequent hops, the pressure will probably arrive the same way the pressure for JMAP did: from large sites, where large wins can be had by implementing something like this, even if it is not universal.

IOW, we should do the JMAP part right, in hopes that things will improve in the rest of the system, not tune the JMAP solution to the lowest common denominator.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email