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

71–80 of 235 posts

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#71

Post by puszczyk »

pjmlp wrote: post #66
vidarh wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we do. The "re-inventions" just tends to be increasingly subtle, because the high level structure continues to make sense and the overall designs are simple to begin with, which makes it hard to come up with revolutionary new ideas in the space. Umbrella's for example see continuous evolution in means of making better fully collapsible versions, making the deployment more automated, reducing weight, etc. From Wik…

The ones being sold at the shops I regulary buy haven't changed a bit, besides their colours.

So you know that “we” don’t reinvent umbrellas, because “you” buy the same all the time?

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#72

Post by bradleyjg »

pedrocr wrote: post #67

>JMAP is a REST API so it uses HTTP requests and responses to issue commands and get the results. Almost all requests in JMAP are to the same URL using an HTTP POST to submit a JSON body of “methods”. Describing this as REST is really strange. Defining your own operations over an HTTP POST is what SOAP and other RPC style web services do and specifically what REST isn't. But I guess that a lack of a standard behind R…

At this point I guess any API that runs on top of HTTP is REST? Strange world.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#73

Post by cruegge »

pedrocr wrote: post #67

>JMAP is a REST API so it uses HTTP requests and responses to issue commands and get the results. Almost all requests in JMAP are to the same URL using an HTTP POST to submit a JSON body of “methods”. Describing this as REST is really strange. Defining your own operations over an HTTP POST is what SOAP and other RPC style web services do and specifically what REST isn't. But I guess that a lack of a standard behind R…

They have an FAQ item concerning that: https://jmap.io/#why-is-it-not-rest-based?

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#74

Post by pjmlp »

puszczyk wrote: post #71
pjmlp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ones being sold at the shops I regulary buy haven't changed a bit, besides their colours.

So you know that “we” don’t reinvent umbrellas, because “you” buy the same all the time?

I don't imagine who would waste their money in re-invented umbrellas, maybe it is an hipster thing.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#75

Post by billpg »

amaccuish wrote: post #69
billpg wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been a long time since I looked at IMAP. Are servers that do this now commonplace? (None I could find used to.) Can I know from a capability exchange if the remote server will send emails after adding to the "Outbox" folder?

No, not as far as I'm aware. But it's an idea I've also had. Upload the message to drafts, and then when you're ready to send, just move it to Outbox right?

That would be ideal. Keep SMTP as a server-to-server protocol only and IMAP as server-to-client.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#76

Post by mariusmg »

pedrocr wrote: post #67

>JMAP is a REST API so it uses HTTP requests and responses to issue commands and get the results. Almost all requests in JMAP are to the same URL using an HTTP POST to submit a JSON body of “methods”. Describing this as REST is really strange. Defining your own operations over an HTTP POST is what SOAP and other RPC style web services do and specifically what REST isn't. But I guess that a lack of a standard behind R…

Maybe unpopular opinion, but i'd take this any day over a "proper" REST api requiring DELETE and PUT.

Also i'd classify a REST api as anything that does http requests and consumes proper JSON. As long as this is true , the rest is squabbling :)

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#77

Post by josteink »

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…

> after a trial realized that Gmail does many things well, except for being a good email service.

This.

I remember back when Gmail was new and hot. It was unlike any other email service out there, and ridiculing people for using inferior email-solutions could to a certain extent be justified.

While other webmails were slow, had constantly reloading pages and what not, Gmail was fast. It was amazingly fast. Gone where the 5 minutes making the webmail work for you. You just sent the email and you were done. Just like that. Back then, this was unheard of.

These days though? Everyone is still pretending like GMail is the only game in town, when I think they have one of the worst webmail-interfaces out there. And it's slow. Oh god it is slow. And god forbid you try to load it in a browser not Chrome, because then it just grinds to a complete halt.

So yeah. Happy Firefox-using FastMail-customer here. You couldn't get me back to GMail even if you paid me.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#78

Post by tyingq »

navlelo wrote: post #56
eggsampler wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been a happy Fastmail customer too, until I was made aware that you can impersonate other Fastmail customers by just spoofing the email address. Their servers just happily accept it. SPF and DKIM all pass with flying colours, and the only way you'd know it's happened is if you have DMARC on and happen to notice a pass in the report you don't remember sending. Well, that is if the recipient doesn't reply to the s…

What is the reason for allowing this? Laziness?

They would need to make some tie between sasl authentication and what FROM: headers you're allowed to use. I don't know what MTA they use, but there are MTAs that have that feature. It's controlled_envelope_senders in postfix. I assume other MTAs have similar features.

It sounds kind of lazy to me. Though I'm sure they would get lots of complaints if they turned it on...some mailing list software depends on spoofing, for example. Or web based "contact us" forms. So perhaps it's just to avoid lots of support tickets.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#79

Post by jxdxbx »

abtinf wrote: post #59
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…

> ...Gmail does many things well, except for being a good email service. Gmail/Gsuite seem to be good email services from my perspective as lay user and occasional admin. Can you expand on why you think they are not good email services?

I’m not a fan of Gmail either, mostly because it lacks push vis iOS Mail (which Fastmail supports, so it is possible), and its non-standard tagging system doesn’t not play well with any third-party client that does not take extraordinary steps to accommodate it. Folders are better. Its proprietary apps are terrible and its web interface is weird, unintuitive, ugly, and slow.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#80

Post by josteink »

abtinf wrote: post #59
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…

> ...Gmail does many things well, except for being a good email service. Gmail/Gsuite seem to be good email services from my perspective as lay user and occasional admin. Can you expand on why you think they are not good email services?

Here's a few things:

- constantly changing things around. UI gets less intuitive for every release.

- slower for every release

- violates IMAP standard by re-using IDs across tags/IMAP folders, risking actual data loss. Example: if you in a real email-client try to delete a email from a single folder, you will also delete this email from all other folders it has been "tagged" in.

- similar IMAP issues with sent emails. Hard to track sent emails from email-client, unless you allow the email-client to explicitly save a copy to sent-emails folder. But then you suddenly have duplicate emails in the web-UI.

- Makes an open standard (internet email) proprietary.

- Hell to integrate with: See above.

I'm sure I could go on, but really. If you still consider GMail best in class, the only possible explanation is that you haven't seen anything else.

Post reply on HN