[MlMt] JMAP support
mailmate at randy.pensive.org
Fri Jan 11 14:58:39 EST 2019
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
> 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
> * 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.
More information about the mailmate