4 ms·
There’s no clear value proposition for a JSON-over-HTTP replacement for IMAP-over-TCP, especially for clients and servers that have already implemented IMAP. W
by catiopatio 4y ago
There’s no clear value proposition for a JSON-over-HTTP replacement for IMAP-over-TCP, especially for clients and servers that have already implemented IMAP.
Why would dovecot want to add an entire HTTP server just to reproduce what they already have, with more layers of poorly fit abstraction, despite there being no significant mail clients that require it?
- calvinmorrison 4y agoJSON happens to be over JSON and HTTP, IMAP is over TCP and the IMAP protocol. both of those pieces are a relatively small amount of code to parse messages from rather than what to do with said messages. You can transport jmap over whatever you want theoretically.
- Mailtemi 4y agoEach JMAP server should include IMAP QRESYNC like functionality at least. Plus the ability to batch JMAP calls. For instance, if you have five folders with IMAP, it might take at least five hops to access them. With JMAP, it could be accomplished in just one call, returning the location of each new email in each folder.
- alerighi 4y agoThis really benefits when you first connect a client to a server that has to sync all the mail locally, and partially each time the client starts that has to check all the folders for new messages. But realistically when a client is opened (that is when you turn on the computer till you turn it off, if you turn it off and don't put it to sleep). Also most people has only a few folders, say less than 10.