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.
Personally, I'm skeptical. Sure, if IMAP were being designed today,
using a better protocol representation of objects and a more failsafe
protocol would help. Feel free to point out where I'm wrong, but as I
see it, the biggest problem with IMAP is the huge variability among
servers. Adding yet another protocol to the mix will only make that
problem worse. There have been attempts over the years to raise the bar
for IMAP server compatibility by mandating support for a slew of
extensions and certain behavior that is now variable. But it hasn't
gotten wide support among servers. So I don't see how something new
will do better.
It's also not true, as the link asserts, that IMAP is not designed for
today's constrained network environments or high latency. Quite the
opposite: IMAP was originally designed to work over dial-up modems with
extremely low bandwidth, high latency, and high disconnects.
--Randall
_______________________________________________
mailmate mailing list
mailmate@lists.freron.com
https://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
