IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend without outbox (was Re: Best vs Good enough - adoption of JMAP)

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 26 April 2017 19:09 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 3D159128C84 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:09:12 -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 6Dra7OPVaIHC for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:09:10 -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 5D2F61205F1 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id h123so9476359qke.0 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:09:10 -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=xM4kxtCPfe0o79AdHBsI9UraN2+mx3ItkYroj645Oww=; b=mrPY93V1pQQqEuW2x1o79siE8iHDn2bAEMjwK6bQgjHM8LbgBKl2NzZO4/6iN3aWp7 idDp0cm+l5cprTlU8W8CH+OJnY2dYqQw/whfMLgnzcb6I9zkvHz1EGN5x9/drIXzaUEn SNAV173Vkfq1kkYaw+SWUlF6SUDcbrwVBmBh/StP3+nQtaPUahTC+Mu23s/+QBl+i2Wk 1jaSBAKzIrf00uiK6O+et3Kr15SNcbvHfx+1KkQDjbALR1YpnjZnfXV8Dp7AOZ/zkDlH AKWb7Gz5a2wMBuyYVzyYBrAmIlWmQgRSkxEmvHsMp+zfvXlu7aiTzFAz5q++tGVU/jsK 3h7Q==
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=xM4kxtCPfe0o79AdHBsI9UraN2+mx3ItkYroj645Oww=; b=FAauw2nGpAfHeEYd+yS6ZmxBT8oWIrIxtQT+sTfEs0gnjOSw6fSmL2DMKfvgkiK8wL JilB977ICMpZbtBKC2381jnJk3jwmORuKevMNj9SMIlpKad7Mg/g6YRojukz8CzC7MW0 xRUc2sXWvnElA68C+cevXq7q3oWPbmzecfZyHGz0TlqaXCfGAr0J0ztaPDq6kJ/IRwKh TMtgPt3rTMw1oVtYfJewPf6hOUFDyoWUxuOjPAEItw22TE8eGNMpYfXjz2LQtS+TJpUI xMR+NQdJQFVOiOPY5IBmF8F+z+4JgX0imUOOSQTIhg6HXs3yh52mX6coIJO7tG0QZcJT 0b6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7QmRBrH8Ixxgvhbh7XC3nJ+T0byi0BVwM4ft1fSlvfJTuKwAxc xANSGcSuTnJJ8w==
X-Received: by 10.55.19.86 with SMTP id d83mr1449820qkh.196.1493233749517; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:09:09 -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 x26sm75374qtx.69.2017.04.26.12.09.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <DB7983DE-892D-433F-8FB6-5AAD531E8D59@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E37A0006-0649-4608-8025-3BF8A7C3DEEB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:09:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <B2FD4698-E783-4D15-BA4E-B637A070E6A9@oracle.com>
Cc: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>, 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> <1493185260.709114.956477904.75CB343B@webmail.messagingengine.com> <B2FD4698-E783-4D15-BA4E-B637A070E6A9@oracle.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/mUnOKXwKKvws2RyTVJpIn224Az4>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] simpler future release & unsend without outbox (was Re: 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 19:09:12 -0000

On Apr 26, 2017, at 1:54 PM, Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com> wrote:
> I'll describe a model that achieves my goal (which is to provide the desired future release & unsend functionality without requiring the server to implement a storage model with combined mail store and mail queue semantics).
> [...]

This looks good to me, FWIW. :)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email