MBOX-Line: From arnt at gulbrandsen.priv.no  Wed Mar 11 02:34:32 2015
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:54 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] If Crispin were creating IMAP today how would
 it be different?
In-Reply-To: <54FF60A0.5138.18BCFD72@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>
References: <54FAEB94.4070508@lavabitllc.com>
	<CAP1qinbr2hBTS1d_Sdeeqz9m37GXZgKzphEAx0J+SQYmbEr5zw@mail.gmail.com>
	<F22E882E-0476-477E-9CB7-63121106217C@psaux.com>
	<54FF60A0.5138.18BCFD72@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>
Message-ID: <9251e104-e2f9-47af-a009-f5652605142f@gulbrandsen.priv.no>

David Harris writes:
> Don't get me wrong - there are things I absolutely *loathe* 
> about IMAP (implied part 
> numbering in bodystructures being the biggest one), but it's 
> what we've got: I for 
> one have negative enthusiasm for spending another ten years in 
> bitter arguments 
> over some slightly "improved" replacement.

We're going to get it, though. There have been a few high-profile 
gmail-only IMAP client launches in the past few years, and now Gmail has a 
JSON-based prototocol that'll be simpler to use than IMAP for many people.

Quite agree about the implied part numbering.

Arnt


