On 11 Jan 2019, at 20:58, Randall Gellens wrote:
On 11 Jan 2019, at 7:07, Benny Kjær Nielsen wrote:
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.
That's kind of what I was trying to say :-) It's only a help to me if
I'm not making the proxy and it handles more IMAP issues than my own
code.
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.
Yes, from my perspective an IMAP->IMAP proxy would actually be more
useful since it would allow me to tell users to use the proxy whenever
some weird IMAP issue was not handled well by MailMate :-)
Also, as soon as multiple JMAP implementations exist then some of them
are likely to be buggy or limited in some way -- and then I'm making
workarounds again...
What is really needed is a comprehensive test suite which users can
*easily* use to test a given IMAP provider. It kind of
[exists](https://imapwiki.org/ImapTest/ServerStatus), but it's too hard
to use. I'm thinking something like what the [acid
tests](http://acid3.acidtests.org) did for web browsers.
--
Benny
_______________________________________________
mailmate mailing list
mailmate@lists.freron.com
https://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
