32 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
32 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
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
|
|
|
|
|