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

["Chris Newman" <[e-mail]>]

On 24 Apr 2017, at 18:05, Adrien de Croy wrote:
> I don't really think of JMAP as a proxy.  I think of it on an even par 
> with IMAP + SUBMIT servers.  I'm not intending to proxy JMAP back via 
> IMAP, we abstracted the store from IMAP in any case (so it could be 
> shared with POP3), so the JMAP server would be another user of that 
> mail store.

Our JMAP-like component was initially implemented as a peer access 
protocol to our IMAP & POP servers using our internal store API. At one 
point we deliberately converted it to be an IMAP proxy. That turned out 
to be a very good architecture decision for our product. It improved our 
mail store reliability and scalability by providing greater functional 
separation and a better deployment model. So I view JMAP as an 
IMAP/Submit proxy based on that experience.

POP3 is such a simple protocol that it's not worth the effort to convert 
it from an internal API consumer to a proxy, but if I started a design 
from scratch, I'd implement POP3 as a proxy to an IMAP backend.

		- Chris