[MlMt] JMAP support

[Benny Kjær Nielsen]

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 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.

That's kind of what I was trying to say :-) It's only a help to me if 
I'm not making the proxy and it handles more IMAP issues than my own 
code.

>> 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.

Yes, from my perspective an IMAP->IMAP proxy would actually be more 
useful since it would allow me to tell users to use the proxy whenever 
some weird IMAP issue was not handled well by MailMate :-)

Also, as soon as multiple JMAP implementations exist then some of them 
are likely to be buggy or limited in some way -- and then I'm making 
workarounds again...

What is really needed is a comprehensive test suite which users can 
*easily* use to test a given IMAP provider. It kind of 
[exists](https://imapwiki.org/ImapTest/ServerStatus), but it's too hard 
to use. I'm thinking something like what the [acid 
tests](http://acid3.acidtests.org) did for web browsers.

-- 
Benny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freron.com/pipermail/mailmate/attachments/20190116/d3e0bb6a/attachment.html>