Helge HeßYou know, you shouldn't do #JMAP. It really is pretty awful. And while IMAP4 is weird, that's what you should do. But my real question is, what was the JMAP client I should try? 🙈
I think what annoys me the most is that this doesn’t embrace HTTP standards at all, it’s a single endpoint that is completely custom behind that, and I don’t understand why that can’t be done properly. Each mailbox and message should be a URL and not hidden behind some arbitrary RPC #JMAP
Chris Hanson@helge Yeah, if you want to do mail-over-HTTP then do mail-over-HTTP, don’t use port 80 for some other protocol. And also there’s no good reason for JMAP to exist, just use IMAP. The IMAP protocol design is perfectly fine, and Marc Crispin ensured it’d even work extremely well over a 2400bps link.
@eschaton I mean there is a valid reason: You cant really implement IMAP in a web client. But that doesn’t mean you can’t do the bridge properly …
@helge Not being able to implement IMAP in a web client is a positive, not a negative. JavaScript was a mistake.
rtyler
Tom Harrington@atomicbird @eschaton It’s difficult (UTF 7!!) but efficient and widely supported. There is no question that it’s weird but there is also no question that it just works.
@atomicbird @eschaton If you run a service at the scale of Fastmail, stateless protocols certainly have an advantage, though iCloud also runs on IMAP and seems to have no particular issues doing that.
I'm absolutely not opposed to HTTP mail, like at all, I love it, I just don't think that piping everything through one endpoint is a good approach. This can be, and has been, done better.
I'm absolutely not opposed to HTTP mail, like at all, I love it, I just don't think that piping everything through one endpoint is a good approach. This can be, and has been, done better.