29 lines
1.0 KiB
Plaintext
29 lines
1.0 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From joel+imap-protocol at panacea.null.org Sat Mar 7 20:12:58 2015
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Joel Reicher <joel+imap-protocol@panacea.null.org>
|
|
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: <54FAEB94.4070508@lavabitllc.com>
|
|
References: <54FAEB94.4070508@lavabitllc.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <16984.1425787978@atlas.panacea.null.org>
|
|
|
|
> 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?
|
|
|
|
In addition to mail-specific aspects, something like IMAP needs to
|
|
solve the problem of (concurrent) access to remote storage (over a
|
|
network).
|
|
|
|
Looking at current solutions to that problem in its generic form may
|
|
suggest stateful is the way to go. (In particular the evolution of
|
|
NFS.)
|
|
|
|
Regards,
|
|
|
|
- Joel
|
|
|