>I haven't gotten very far into the details, but the move to a stateless >protocol seemed like an improvement (at least potentially) over IMAP to me.
Well, so ... here's my opinion on that. The "stateless" part really is talking about the network protocol. My reading of the JMAP spec is that you definitely need to remember things between requests. Like if you find out a mailbox or message id, you need to remember for later use. Yes, I see what you mean about you can do some interesting batching, where the output of one query can be fed into another query ... but I am not sure that is directly usable by nmh. Nmh really wants to work on "message numbers", so you need to map that to "message identifiers", be it IMAP or JMAP. The solutions for that are relatively obvious, but that does mean most of the time you won't be able to do a query without translating those results into MH message numbers and that prevents batching. But in terms of cutting down round trips ... you can batch up a lot of stuff in an IMAP request, and you're allowed to send multiple commands at once (each command is prefixed with a tag so you can distinguish the responses). And you can do intelligent things like only ask for the parts of the message you care about. So, I _think_ it's probably a wash in terms of how nmh would use it. And preliminary tests suggested that the round trips weren't too awful (see the archives). >As to GMail, there's some uncertainty about the scheduling, since a big >step was apparently delayed recently, but it has to do with "Less Secure >App" access: > > https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/6010255?hl=en Right, we already support that! >AIUI, Google was planning on discontinuing LSA access late this year for >gmail accounts (hosted GSuite accounts had a different timeline but the >same goal). Instead, apps can apply for an app-specific "secret", but on >terms that specifically disallow open-source code from shipping the secret. Well ... we've been dealing with this as well. Our reading of the terms is that the issue isn't with open source software at all, but more about how you prove that you're "you" (we shipped a secret that worked until very recently). I don't see anything that really disallows OSS, though! --Ken
