5 ms·

> HTTP and JSON are such an insignificant price to pay for the sliver of hope that email can be saved and not being in complete control of google et al. How wo

by asjo 7y ago

> HTTP and JSON are such an insignificant price to pay for the sliver of hope that email can be saved and not being in complete control of google et al. How would JMAP accomplish that, in a way that other protocols don't?

tjoff 7y ago
The shortcomings of IMAP and POP are reflected in all mail clients and is a large part in what has made webmail so popular. Another reason is that webmail vendors of today typically deliver a subpar IMAP/POP experience. So combining a native client and webmail when on the go is rarely ideal. JMAP is the first chance in a long time to get a decent experience that doesn't involve an expert and (even if you are willing to put in the time) tons of compromises. And aside from all that we have an opportunity and reason to revive native clients that has gone stagnant (which is pretty much all of them).
- u801e 7y ago
  > The shortcomings of IMAP and POP are reflected in all mail clients and is a large part in what has made webmail so popular. Could you elaborate on this? I personally find using a mail client like Thunderbird to access my mail account far more responsive and seamless compared to using the webmail interface. If I don't have much bandwidth to work with, the local mail client using IMAP and SMTP will work while the webmail client will experience timeouts.
  - tjoff 7y ago
    So do I. But syncing mail with IMAP isn't good enough and many features of webmail clients do not map to IMAP clients. There are also tons of caveats during configuration so tons of people, rightfully so, don't bother.
  - amaccuish 7y ago
    IMAP is incredibly annoying. To send a message, you send via SMTP and then upload that message to your Sent folder, so it's transferred twice. For some reason the IMAP implementation I use means that when I move a message to a different folder, it uploads the message to the new folder, deletes the original message, and then downloads the message from the new folder. I have no idea if it's my server, client or the spec, but very wasteful and often fucks up.

by asjo 7y ago

tjoff 7y ago

The shortcomings of IMAP and POP are reflected in all mail clients and is a large part in what has made webmail so popular. Another reason is that webmail vendors of today typically deliver a subpar IMAP/POP experience. So combining a native client and webmail when on the go is rarely ideal. JMAP is the first chance in a long time to get a decent experience that doesn't involve an expert and (even if you are willing to put in the time) tons of compromises. And aside from all that we have an opportunity and reason to revive native clients that has gone stagnant (which is pretty much all of them).

u801e 7y ago
> The shortcomings of IMAP and POP are reflected in all mail clients and is a large part in what has made webmail so popular. Could you elaborate on this? I personally find using a mail client like Thunderbird to access my mail account far more responsive and seamless compared to using the webmail interface. If I don't have much bandwidth to work with, the local mail client using IMAP and SMTP will work while the webmail client will experience timeouts.
- tjoff 7y ago
  So do I. But syncing mail with IMAP isn't good enough and many features of webmail clients do not map to IMAP clients. There are also tons of caveats during configuration so tons of people, rightfully so, don't bother.
- amaccuish 7y ago
  IMAP is incredibly annoying. To send a message, you send via SMTP and then upload that message to your Sent folder, so it's transferred twice. For some reason the IMAP implementation I use means that when I move a message to a different folder, it uploads the message to the new folder, deletes the original message, and then downloads the message from the new folder. I have no idea if it's my server, client or the spec, but very wasteful and often fucks up.