On 11 Jan 2019, at 7:07, Benny Kjær Nielsen wrote:
On 28 Dec 2018, at 19:12, Bill Cole wrote:
With that said, I HOPE Benny resists the urge to implement JMAP in
MailMate...
It's actually easy to resist, because I have very little to gain from
implementing it. Users would still require MailMate to work with all
kinds of IMAP servers (including some very buggy ones). Three things
could happen which could make me focus on a JMAP implementation:
* All IMAP servers also supported JMAP (this is never going to
happen).
* JMAP-only servers (more likely to happen, but probably not in a long
time and in that case I would probably gain more by supporting native
Exchange — which is also *not* on my todo).
* The availability of a JMAP-proxy implementation which could be
embedded in MailMate to handle *all* IMAP servers. Then MailMate would
only need to talk to the JMAP proxy.
The last one is maybe the most likely one, but given the complexity of
the current IMAP implementation (in order to handle all kinds of
issues) I kind of doubt that it's possible. A proxy which only works
well with some IMAP servers is currently of little use to me.
An IMAP-JMAP proxy just moves the complexity of dealing with the myriad
of IMAP servers from core MailMate to an embedded proxy. I don't see it
providing that much help, while it would undoubtedly introduce its own
set of problems.
Note: This does not mean that I think JMAP is a bad idea. It's just
not for MailMate yet.
As I said earlier, while JMAP might be very cool, it doesn't help the
core problem of widely variant IMAP server behavior; instead, it just
introduces yet more variants.
--Randall
_______________________________________________
mailmate mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
