53 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
53 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From brong at fastmail.fm Sat Mar 7 15:37:18 2015
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:53 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] If Crispin were creating IMAP today how would
|
|
it be different?
|
|
In-Reply-To: <54FB50B9.8010009@verizon.net>
|
|
References: <54FAEB94.4070508@lavabitllc.com> <54FB50B9.8010009@verizon.net>
|
|
Message-ID: <1425771438.472600.237334077.6AC8DF41@webmail.messagingengine.com>
|
|
|
|
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015, at 06:25 AM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
|
|
> On 3/7/2015 6:14 AM, Ladar Levison wrote:
|
|
> > I thought this might be a good list to ask a simple, but admittedly
|
|
> > subjective question: If Mark Crispin was creating IMAP from scratch,
|
|
> > in the world of today, would it still be a line based protocol like
|
|
> > it was with RFC3501, or would he have gone with something more
|
|
> > stateless, like a JSON-RPC paradigm, like JMAP?
|
|
>
|
|
> If Mark was redesigning IMAP today, I imagine it would end up looking
|
|
> more or less like IMAP looks today with the biggest changes being some
|
|
> IMAP extensions being mandatory and the entire protocol (except
|
|
> message literals) being UTF-8.
|
|
>
|
|
> From reading his messages in this mailing list, he would focus on
|
|
> supporting use cases of clients, but primarily what he thinks a
|
|
> "good" IMAP client looks like--unlike many others here, he was fully
|
|
> insistent on message sequence numbers being the only right way to do
|
|
> things. A stateful, line-based protocol would be far simpler for
|
|
> clients to implement (particularly since I also get the impression
|
|
> that he would have eschewed needing to use several layers of
|
|
> frameworks).
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I would have been arguing very strongly against this - at least
|
|
with the whole "you can't tell the client about expunges" because it
|
|
changes sequence numbers problem - because it doesn't interact well with
|
|
CONDSTORE and friends, and it requires the server to keep COW state on
|
|
the entire mailbox for each connected client.
|
|
|
|
Of course, I'm not Mark Crispin :) I don't like anything which forces
|
|
either end to do more work than it actually needs - and IMAP has a pile
|
|
of required work that many clients don't actually use (like the UNSEEN
|
|
and RECENT values which aren't used by many clients). There's no way
|
|
for a client specify that it doesn't need the server to do the
|
|
bookkeeping on its behalf.
|
|
|
|
Bron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Bron Gondwana
|
|
brong@fastmail.fm
|
|
|