Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

unencumberedbyfacts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 235 posts

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#211

Post by u801e »

distances wrote: post #133
u801e wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything in the email headers that shows the authenticated user? My preference would be that email providers rewrite the From: header to match the authenticated user and that the sender uses the Reply-To: header to direct replies to a destination of their choice.

Not good enough, as many email clients show both of these fields. The whole idea why people use this is to send and receive with one address only, even if you've authenticated with another.

I believe most email clients will default to using the Reply-To: header to determine the value of the To: header in the reply, so if both headers are specified and even if the email client displays both of them, then the recipient would have a chance to determine whether the email is authentic or not.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#212

Post by u801e »

jamesgeck0 wrote: post #194
OtterCoder wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IRC works pretty well. I really fail to understand why any tech project puts their chat on Slack/Discord/Whatever when IRC is easy and open.

First, IRC isn't easy for newbies. I tried to adopt it at the first tech company I worked for, and our support folks had a lot of trouble getting the basics down. There could be a client that makes things easier, but I've never seen one as easy as Slack. Second, IRC alone doesn't provide a bunch of features that everyone expects nowadays. You have to host or pay for a bouncer if you want to see what was said when you…

> IRC isn't easy for newbies. I tried to adopt it at the first tech company I worked for, and our support folks had a lot of trouble getting the basics down. There could be a client that makes things easier, but I've never seen one as easy as Slack.

Years ago, I started out with mIRC on Windows 95. I didn't know many IRC commands, but as I recall, you could navigate through the menus to do things like list channels, join them, part from them, etc. So, I don't think that an application like that should be any more difficult to use compared to Slack.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#213

Post by loeg »

h1d wrote: post #189
loeg wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sieve is great. I highly recommend it over, say, procmail, or Outlook filters (especially Outlook Web Access).

Isn't procmail dead?

What does dead mean to you? It still compiles and you can install it from various binary repositories.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#214

Post by ekovarski »

inanutshellus wrote: post #121
bad_user wrote: post #40

FastMail is behind this protocol and from what I've read JMAP has evolved out of their web interface. I've been a happy customer, even though lately I flirted with going back to GSuite for my personal email, but after a trial realized that Gmail does many things well, except for being a good email service. So I went back to FastMail and renewed for another 2 years. Seeing this new protocol is exciting, because JMAP i…

I considered FM a while back but... you pay per account! $50/account no less! I separate my email into three accounts across two domains and my wife does the same and I have kids who'll have their own email addresses at some point. I can't even begin to consider using it at the price point I presume I'd be in.

Check out migadu.com; They price their plans according to how many emails you anticipate to send.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#215

Post by yo-nathan »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #156
PaulHoule wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Email is "good enough". The real hole is "instant messaging". Somehow every few years we got from ICQ to AIM to Paltalk to Skype to Facebook Messenger to Slack to ... (at least Altassian had the decency to take HipChat behind the woodshed and shoot it) The strange thing is that these services dry up, blow away, get replaced, but they don't seem to improve on what came before. There is a standard, XMPP, but the only p…

XMPP’s problem isn’t that people don’t care about it. Its problem is a double whammy of having zero branding/mindspace presence and being too technical for many users to bother with. The second point is especially big. People expect to be pointed to a singular app/site, not “choose whichever client you like”. Your average Joe just doesn’t conceptualize services as being separate from clients in the first place, and e…

I totally agree with that. I've good experiences recommending Quicksy[1][2] though. It makes not only account creation easy as pie, but also helps people finding their peers by their phone numbers.

Give it to your average Joes and Janes and they will just use it like any other messenger. But since it is pure XMPP, can just use any other Jabber account to chat with them. :)

I recommended it a lot the last weeks and most of my pals just use it without any hassle. At least in my bubble most of the people have besides WhatsApp also Telegram or Viber or WhatEver installed. So it's for them Quicksy is just yet another app. But this time one, which helps to get out of the walled garden. :)

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=im.quicksy.cli... [2] https://quicksy.im

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#216

Post by hardwaresofton »

wwarner wrote: post #179
hardwaresofton wrote: post #3

I really want to see some innovation in the email space. The landscape is like a sea of false promises and dashed dreams. SMTP is one of the bread-and-butters of the internet, yet it just doesn't seem to be moving forward (maybe that's for the best), and no one's building extensions on top of it. Maybe I'm naive in thinking it was possible but we could have avoided this whole "make an account on X messenger so we can…

Apache James is a great smtp and imap server that has a lot of really great features, like distributed storage in cassandra and some support for jmap.

This is why I keep coming back to HN -- thanks for recommending Apache James.

I thought I searched far and wide for other mail servers, yet only came up with postfix, iredmail and cyrus, I clearly didn't look hard enough

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#217

Post by hardwaresofton »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #154
hardwaresofton wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't explain it fully, but the alternate future I was imagining was one where SMTP could evolve/instantiate a connection for "ASAP email" -- AKA instant messaging. Kinda like how HTTP can upgrade to websockets. There would obviously be a lot to work out, but if something like this was in the SMTP standard (or at least introduced), I think eventually email providers would race to differentiate themselves with supp…

I don't want instant messaging in my email though. If you need synchronous communications, use a chat client.

This is probably where we differ -- I don't think limiting email to asynchronous communications helps anyone, and it could have been written in an extensible manner to also support synchronous communication.

Even if I'm completely wrong and email should be left asynchronous, SMTP could at least have introduced some standard around chat negotiation and a protocol negotiation process for remote chat servers/agents.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#218

Post by h1d »

loeg wrote: post #213
h1d wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't procmail dead?

What does dead mean to you? It still compiles and you can install it from various binary repositories.

It's not even maintained and the official site seems long gone. How do you see this as alive?

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#219

Post by toomuchtodo »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #217
toomuchtodo wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want instant messaging in my email though. If you need synchronous communications, use a chat client.

This is probably where we differ -- I don't think limiting email to asynchronous communications helps anyone, and it could have been written in an extensible manner to also support synchronous communication. Even if I'm completely wrong and email should be left asynchronous, SMTP could at least have introduced some standard around chat negotiation and a protocol negotiation process for remote chat servers/agents.

> Even if I'm completely wrong and email should be left asynchronous, SMTP could at least have introduced some standard around chat negotiation and a protocol negotiation process for remote chat servers/agents.

Wouldn't this be best handled with SRV DNS records or some other service discovery process outside of SMTP?

https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/SRV_Records

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#220

Post by jasonmunro »

Mailtemi wrote: post #202
jasonmunro wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Just curious, did you build Cyrus yourself or there is beta server already?

I checked out the git source and built it from there. It was non-trivial to get it built and configured properly for JMAP, but I wanted the latest as the spec is still in flux.
Post reply on HN