3 ms·
> no better alternatives IMAP. IMAP is the better alternative. It’s universally supported and battle-tested. We have great servers and clients for it. It’s n
by catiopatio 4y ago
> no better alternatives
IMAP. IMAP is the better alternative.
It’s universally supported and battle-tested. We have great servers and clients for it.
It’s not perfect, but it’s also not fundamentally flawed in any way that might put the future of e-mail at risk.
Bolting HTTP and JSON onto e-mail via JMAP — and requiring that everyone implement an entirely new, larger protocol stack — is not an obvious value proposition.
- lucideer 4y ago> IMAP is the better alternative. So the definition of the word "alternative" in this instance is "something other than IMAP" - the argument for JMAP is not competing with IMAP, there's a pre-determined assumption that we're already unhappy with IMAP, hence the search for an "alternative". It sounds like you disagree fundamentally with moving on from IMAP in the first place, which is fair enough. That's not a debate I'm getting into here: all I'm saying is IFF we are moving on from IMAP, JMAP looks like the best alternative.
- tjoff 4y agoDisagree, the dominance of IMAP makes email much worse than it needs to be. To the very point of putting email at risk in the long run.
- einpoklum 4y ago> We have great servers and clients for it. I don't know about servers, but I'm still waiting to see a great email client. (For now I get by with Thunderbird, and it's actually going downhill.)