JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really • Hacker News Board

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#11

Post by nothrabannosir » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:15 AM UTC

Very interesting:

> JMAP is not designed around a persistent network socket, so it’s perfect for webmail clients that connect, do stuff, then disconnect

This would allow implementing JMAP in serverless architecture, e.g. self hosting on AWS lambda. That should be very cheap and significantly lower the barrier to self hosting (not needing to manage a box, just providing aws credentials).

Think of what it takes to truly decentralise email. There are technical hurdles, but also some fundamental ones:

- other providers mark you as spam because you’re unknown

- you need an always on server to actually get your incoming mail

This would at least solve the second problem. If we can develop a product like mailinabox (Which has its flaws but it’s the right idea), but instead of asking for a fresh vm, it just asks for aws credentials, that could be pretty solid.

Hopefully one day we can give the people back their control over their means of communication. This seems like a step in the right direction!

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#12

Post by ggm » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:18 AM UTC

The main failure in mail standards is a lack of explicit utf8 clean support lhs@rhs -if this got fixed (it's often called universal acceptance) a lot of things about mail as an ecology would improve.

I have view on the spam thing. The whole "your idea will not work because" meme is hugely destructive of innovation in email. It sucks energy and mindshare. It's classic old timer put down.

What would (imnsho opinion) have fixed spam is sender pays. I've debated this with a lot of people. We're 50/50 on it. Fifty agree with me, fifty million don't.

Jmap is utf8 clean btw.

(I used to do email for a living in the eighties when life was simple and bang!chains!worked)

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#13

Post by tinus_hn » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:18 AM UTC

sigsergv wrote: post #9

akie wrote: post #4

The article mentions that JMAP does calendars as well. Anyone have a quick status update on how it compares to CalDav and if it's supported by any of the major calendar clients or servers? I did a quick google and looked at the JMAP site but couldn't find any info. Background for this is that I implemented a calendar client and a calendar server (with SabreDAV) last year and I'm wondering if I should be adding suppor…

Current state of calendaring is horrible, it's basically not possible right now to create compatible and reliable library/application.

Calendaring truly is surprisingly difficult. Dates and times just are not defined with computers in mind.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#14

Post by elcomet » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:20 AM UTC

nothrabannosir wrote: post #11

Very interesting: > JMAP is not designed around a persistent network socket, so it’s perfect for webmail clients that connect, do stuff, then disconnect This would allow implementing JMAP in serverless architecture, e.g. self hosting on AWS lambda. That should be very cheap and significantly lower the barrier to self hosting (not needing to manage a box, just providing aws credentials). Think of what it takes to trul…

I'm not sure I understand: JMAP is designed for communication between the client and the mail server. But you still would need a mail server, always on, to receive the incoming mail from other servers, right ?

Did I miss something about JMAP?

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#15

Post by billpg » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:26 AM UTC

Last time I looked at IMAP, I was a little peeved that servers didn't accept messages added to the "Outbox" folder and send them, instead requiring that clients talk SMTP and then (or not) save a copy of the same message to the "Sent" folder.

Could JMAP replace SMTP as well as IMAP?

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#16

Post by jasonmunro » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:30 AM UTC

billpg wrote: post #15

Last time I looked at IMAP, I was a little peeved that servers didn't accept messages added to the "Outbox" folder and send them, instead requiring that clients talk SMTP and then (or not) save a copy of the same message to the "Sent" folder. Could JMAP replace SMTP as well as IMAP?

JMAP actually does support replacing both. My next TODO item for Cypht is integrating SMTP support with JMAP.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#17

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:34 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#18

Post by m_mueller » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:35 AM UTC

ggm wrote: post #12

The main failure in mail standards is a lack of explicit utf8 clean support lhs@rhs -if this got fixed (it's often called universal acceptance) a lot of things about mail as an ecology would improve. I have view on the spam thing. The whole "your idea will not work because" meme is hugely destructive of innovation in email. It sucks energy and mindshare. It's classic old timer put down. What would (imnsho opinion) ha…

How about a combination of sender-pays and a whitelist for everyone else? Essentially, have a web-standard for what linkedin is doing.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#19

Post by efdee » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:37 AM UTC

ggm wrote: post #12

The main failure in mail standards is a lack of explicit utf8 clean support lhs@rhs -if this got fixed (it's often called universal acceptance) a lot of things about mail as an ecology would improve. I have view on the spam thing. The whole "your idea will not work because" meme is hugely destructive of innovation in email. It sucks energy and mindshare. It's classic old timer put down. What would (imnsho opinion) ha…

If paying to send email is your suggested solution, I can see why you don't like the meme in question. But the suggestion is rife with problems. How exactly are you going to get everyone to start paying for email, which is free today? If it's a parallel system, how are you going to get people to switch? Who are they going to pay?

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#20

Post by tjoff » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 9:38 AM UTC

nothrabannosir wrote: post #11

Very interesting: > JMAP is not designed around a persistent network socket, so it’s perfect for webmail clients that connect, do stuff, then disconnect This would allow implementing JMAP in serverless architecture, e.g. self hosting on AWS lambda. That should be very cheap and significantly lower the barrier to self hosting (not needing to manage a box, just providing aws credentials). Think of what it takes to trul…

Why?

Mail is decentralized already. Part from relying on DNS.

And you seem very eager to put everything in the amazon basket.