[MlMt] JMAP support

[Randall Gellens]

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 MailMate to work with all 
> kinds of IMAP servers (including some very buggy ones). Three things 
> could happen which could make me focus on a JMAP implementation:
>
> * All IMAP servers also supported JMAP (this is never going to 
> happen).
> * JMAP-only servers (more likely to happen, but probably not in a long 
> time and in that case I would probably gain more by supporting native 
> Exchange — which is also *not* on my todo).
> * The availability of a JMAP-proxy implementation which could be 
> embedded in MailMate to handle *all* IMAP servers. Then MailMate would 
> only need to talk to the JMAP proxy.
>
> 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.

> 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.

--Randall