Post B5CbtoB8Ambb9udZtw by helge@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by helge@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #B5CbtoB8Ambb9udZtw by helge@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
You know, you shouldn't do #JMAP. It really is pretty awful. And while IMAP4 is weird, that's what you should do. But my real question is, what was the JMAP client I should try? 🙈
(DIR) Post #B5CbtoQNG6nZvBlkf2 by helge@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
I think what annoys me the most is that this doesn’t embrace HTTP standards at all, it’s a single endpoint that is completely custom behind that, and I don’t understand why that can’t be done properly. Each mailbox and message should be a URL and not hidden behind some arbitrary RPC #JMAP
(DIR) Post #B5Cbtoio9ZXmqMOTOS by eschaton@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@helge Yeah, if you want to do mail-over-HTTP then do mail-over-HTTP, don’t use port 80 for some other protocol. And also there’s no good reason for JMAP to exist, just use IMAP. The IMAP protocol design is perfectly fine, and Marc Crispin ensured it’d even work extremely well over a 2400bps link.
(DIR) Post #B5CbtourQlBXRk26BE by helge@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eschaton I mean there is a valid reason: You cant really implement IMAP in a web client. But that doesn’t mean you can’t do the bridge properly …
(DIR) Post #B5Cbtp44sUYduKLSXw by eschaton@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@helge Not being able to implement IMAP in a web client is a positive, not a negative. JavaScript was a mistake.
(DIR) Post #B5CbtpBAS8EGGJf7b6 by helge@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eschaton They do the same with jCal and jCard. While it is ok to desire a JSON variant of the payload and have a standard for that, it’s technically nonsense that adds nothing. You can just use Versit.
(DIR) Post #B5CbtpE0HaUuP6zO1A by rtyler@buoyantdata.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eschaton@mastodon.social @helge@mastodon.social nature finds a way https://github.com/googlechromelabs/telnet-client