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
> On Jan 14, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Sam Hathaway wrote:
>
> Not necessarily. But you seem dead set against anything but the status quo so
> I give up.
It’s not a competition (at least to me), it’s a discussion.
Dave
___
mailmate mailing list
On 11 Jan 2019, at 16:14, davecc wrote:
On Jan 11, 2019, at 12:10 PM, Sam Hathaway
wrote:
If coordinated right, it would centralize the thankless work of
kludging around nonstandard, broken IMAP server implementations.
Imagine if, instead of each MUA author having to develop, test, and
On 11 Jan 2019, at 22:14, davecc wrote:
On Jan 11, 2019, at 12:10 PM, Sam Hathaway
wrote:
If coordinated right, it would centralize the thankless work of
kludging around nonstandard, broken IMAP server implementations.
Imagine if, instead of each MUA author having to develop, test,
> On Jan 11, 2019, at 12:10 PM, Sam Hathaway wrote:
>
> If coordinated right, it would centralize the thankless work of kludging
> around nonstandard, broken IMAP server implementations. Imagine if, instead
> of each MUA author having to develop, test, and maintain dozens of ugly
> hacks,
> 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
Amen. Well put.
Dave
___
mailmate mailing list
I guess we’ll have to wait and see how things pan out.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On 11 Jan 2019, at 15:21, Randall Gellens wrote:
On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:10, Sam Hathaway wrote:
On 11 Jan 2019, at 14:58, Randall Gellens wrote:
An IMAP-JMAP proxy just moves the complexity of dealing with the
myriad of IMAP
On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:10, Sam Hathaway wrote:
On 11 Jan 2019, at 14:58, Randall Gellens wrote:
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
On 11 Jan 2019, at 14:58, Randall Gellens wrote:
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.
If
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
On 11 Jan 2019, at 10:07, 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
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
On 30 Dec 2018, at 1:58, Randall Gellens wrote:
> the biggest problem with IMAP is the huge variability among servers. Adding
> yet another protocol to the mix will only make that problem worse.
+1
> There have been attempts over the years to raise the bar for IMAP server
> compatibility by
On 29 Dec 2018, at 13:42, Mike Brasch wrote:
On 29 Dec 2018, at 20:09, Randall Gellens wrote:
I'm curious, why are you asking for JMAP support in MailMate?
Read the 2nd link. It will probably explain it better than I could. :)
And maybe its implementation could help MailMate/Benny.
On 29 Dec 2018, at 20:09, Randall Gellens wrote:
> I'm curious, why are you asking for JMAP support in MailMate?
Read the 2nd link. It will probably explain it better than I could. :)
And maybe its implementation could help MailMate/Benny.
--
With kind regards
Mike
I'm curious, why are you asking for JMAP support in MailMate?
--Randall
___
mailmate mailing list
mailmate@lists.freron.com
https://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
On 28 Dec 2018, at 6:56, Mike Brasch wrote:
Moin moin,
I've just been reading:
- https://fastmail.blog/2018/12/27/jmap-is-on-the-home-straight/
- https://jmap.io
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jmap/about/
I asked for it long time ago. Maybe it's more interesting now?
Somewhat. At
I’d love to hear Benny’s thoughts about this protocol. (It all
sounds great to me, but then again I’ve never written an IMAP client!)
-sam
On 28 Dec 2018, at 6:56, Mike Brasch wrote:
Moin moin,
I've just been reading:
- https://fastmail.blog/2018/12/27/jmap-is-on-the-home-straight/
-
Moin moin,
I've just been reading:
- https://fastmail.blog/2018/12/27/jmap-is-on-the-home-straight/
- https://jmap.io
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jmap/about/
I asked for it long time ago. Maybe it's more interesting now?
--
With kind regards
Mike
19 matches
Mail list logo
