On 29 Jan 2015, at 11:05, Benny Kjær Nielsen wrote:
On 28 Jan 2015, at 22:44, Mike Brasch wrote:
Do you have plans to support [JMAP](http://jmap.io/).
Not yet, but I'm aware of this project and I'm on the mailing list to
keep an eye on it. It'll only be a high priority though if there is
easy access to a JMAP proxy for IMAP -- and I don't envy anyone having
to do that (a proxy would have a hard time handling the many IMAP
server bugs).
PLEASE don't touch it until there's an actual RFC, discrete unencumbered
open source reference server (or IMAP proxy) & client implementations,
and interoperable second client & server/proxy implementations.
There's probably some argument for JMAP that isn't grounded in whiny web
developer laziness, but no one has put it anywhere Google can find it.
And no, http://blog.fastmail.com/2014/12/23/jmap-a-better-way-to-email/
doesn't do it. Maybe FastMail is right, and we really do need a whole
new protocol tightly bound to this year's favorite generic
format+protocol (remind me again: what ever happened to XML? ASN.1?
DCE/RPC? I'm old and forget these things...) On the other hand, maybe
the problems they cite in IMAP can be fixed with extensions to IMAP. I
don't really have an opinion on which way is better, but I do know that
none of the grand plans to supplant existing email protocols in the past
20+ years has really succeeded; the only partial success has been to
replace POP with IMAP.
_______________________________________________
mailmate mailing list
mailmate@lists.freron.com
http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
