IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jmap] Submission

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 19:37 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 A4636129B4B for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 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, 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 xjJGsY5WkFGO for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x236.google.com (mail-qk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::236]) (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 1C3311277BB for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id p68so29199596qke.1 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:37:01 -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=ZC4kdeun2CrgEpsgZJIx7VksqQ94g1XGqA4KM9QLs0A=; b=s/cE8AXGCxlw6quO8nGuSc9gpBYvIn9ealxTRbwKNlnkS7ZFZXDSBPm6tC/cYgoxGh zdM+hgytibhbjxxW4bETuYyCd2YOrrwh3cMlLqfNhE0nfkCONPvUI38JxhNjLX7GDmhB Zdnp8y7sQnqWxyVdbtRdMrJMW7+muQpHS6RdOlocHVOtkPhrnNeZNYhK1mfWu5GMeWp1 Iiyi2tdc+KRfpK/E3JjEKSJfoA9HwarHvMEYy3f4JUBy2ebV2BF74r4AjSuN3nB/MC2Y ADC9tsTkGgRJ/iDzHLQy+U3kZycVJTx6Ux4uhLbi6i3Hkjar8ZzwlZF4PkHxqzN1nfbS kOOA==
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=ZC4kdeun2CrgEpsgZJIx7VksqQ94g1XGqA4KM9QLs0A=; b=jHE8qqOkhbZSLJ+S/Gk2diN6BQLECa69/vGweQCKjPxT1jL+TXFjtFWOn0LlZaQT8V ctv3EmC3unCTS+Z9c5coWtEWvE2gHpLJ/wb6Fy1U2kCctH2YeFksPZ+rBGASEqbsgPhJ L0iAgePRbeN3FGSyeCVRc86Jz2O9vh2UA/gl9HngoXZ1AayhornZj5S27w319ZbJd1iW LanvGW3qTVcTm9l/J4qPT9kf4s2hYrU1cZ5x5oPJdb0JUA3eHSpfkJP5vvVWSjl1AtfG fCdFRpM/0sdLaOxvsh/HlDDzVPu731/3KmluyQkUDkq5eYEo3teCZdptIyUyFqIE4dbE OJrg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6XjmCzEG1U36DtSZUbKIRnRWlisA3xlQR36TxouppJWVcXFa4N bn9Kv5RJ8zzT8A==
X-Received: by 10.55.77.209 with SMTP id a200mr4422361qkb.11.1492630621237; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.20.202] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r129sm668797qkb.16.2017.04.19.12.36.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <89E217B2-A700-498C-BA72-3FD9939F34C7@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_06195D68-23D7-4179-9D01-EF453E03C9FB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:36:59 -0400
In-Reply-To: <096E2D4B-D7ED-4439-BB6F-7944892D2ACA@oracle.com>
Cc: "jmap@ietf.org" <jmap@ietf.org>
To: Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com>
References: <em27fa7b29-5584-44f3-aa88-086ce734ab59@bodybag> <096E2D4B-D7ED-4439-BB6F-7944892D2ACA@oracle.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/veDGgKt-UZM9QOtK5AFiqbf7JN0>
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: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:37:04 -0000

On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com> wrote:
> When deploying a large mail service it's important to keep the submission mail queues (which have management/monitoring issues) functionally separate from the mail store (which has very different management/monitoring issues). If the JMAP design requires a mail queue to be present on the JMAP server or present in the mail store, that is an unacceptable protocol design error as it hinders the manageability of large deployments.

Isn't this just an implementation detail?   IOW, how is it different to have a different protocol for queuing messages, versus having different handling for a mailbox with a specific name?

Your three requirements, which make sense to me, could be added as attributes to the message once it's been sent.

I'm not convinced that this is the right way to handle it—it means that the MUA has to be specifically watching for changes in the submit mailbox, or else that there has to be a submit and a sent mailbox, and the MUA has to watch the sent mailbox.   But ISTM that we have to provide ways of doing all these things anyway, so having an additional protocol may not actually be worth the complexity.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email