6 ms·

I like the look of it but I don't know what JMAP is and what the advantage is over say IMAP / SMTP.

by thimp 3y ago

jbverschoor 3y ago
It's a reworked email protocol, created by fastmail. Basically email over json (send + receive) instead of imap+smtp. https://jmap.io/ https://jmap.io/
- thimp 3y ago
  Got it. Fuck that. JSON has no part in an email stack. Have we not learned from our failures as a species. Edit: I've got 99 problems and 98 of them are JSON on a regular basis. Poor parsers, problems dealing with numeric values, terrible terrible schema support, poor encapsulation support, large things attached to it in base64 (difficult to stream on most parsers), difficult to read without external tools which actually tend to mung or fix the problem you are trying to see (jq does this), completely arbitrary and random metadata jammed in everywhere by everyone trying to make it self-describing, shitty enapsulated types i.e. ISO 8601 date in a text field rather than a principal type. Urgh kill me. It's a hammer made of poo and no one knows any better any more. It's the PHP of wire formats. The COBOL of representation encapsulation. Edit 2: the only positive is it's probably less bad than CalDAV but that's not even supposed to be part of an email stack is it? Everyone has outlook brain.
  - pqdbr 3y ago
    I do not concur. JSON might not be perfect for e-mail (it isn't?) but it's great for a huge range of use-cases. It's a great achievement of our species.
  - sodality2 3y ago
    Why is JSON inherently unfit for an email stack...? It's just a transfer format. If it's designed well, it shouldn't matter if it's JSON or CBOR or anything else.
  - jbverschoor 3y ago
    It's actually pretty great (for submission and reading)
  - jbverschoor 3y ago
    Yeah json is primitive, because it is (was, but still is) just JavaScript errr ECMAScript 3. All your points are valid, but it’s a lot better than xml’s api, confusing whitespacing/attr/element, and huge complexity. Simple is better, and json is def. lacking in some points, but in general it’s easier to work with than xml (or at least getting started with)

I like the look of it but I don't know what JMAP is and what the advantage is over say IMAP / SMTP.

by thimp 3y ago

I like the look of it but I don't know what JMAP is and what the advantage is over say IMAP / SMTP.

It's a reworked email protocol, created by fastmail. Basically email over json (send + receive) instead of imap+smtp. https://jmap.io/ https://jmap.io/

thimp 3y ago
Got it. Fuck that. JSON has no part in an email stack. Have we not learned from our failures as a species. Edit: I've got 99 problems and 98 of them are JSON on a regular basis. Poor parsers, problems dealing with numeric values, terrible terrible schema support, poor encapsulation support, large things attached to it in base64 (difficult to stream on most parsers), difficult to read without external tools which actually tend to mung or fix the problem you are trying to see (jq does this), completely arbitrary and random metadata jammed in everywhere by everyone trying to make it self-describing, shitty enapsulated types i.e. ISO 8601 date in a text field rather than a principal type. Urgh kill me. It's a hammer made of poo and no one knows any better any more. It's the PHP of wire formats. The COBOL of representation encapsulation. Edit 2: the only positive is it's probably less bad than CalDAV but that's not even supposed to be part of an email stack is it? Everyone has outlook brain.
- pqdbr 3y ago
  I do not concur. JSON might not be perfect for e-mail (it isn't?) but it's great for a huge range of use-cases. It's a great achievement of our species.
- sodality2 3y ago
  Why is JSON inherently unfit for an email stack...? It's just a transfer format. If it's designed well, it shouldn't matter if it's JSON or CBOR or anything else.
- jbverschoor 3y ago
  It's actually pretty great (for submission and reading)
- jbverschoor 3y ago
  Yeah json is primitive, because it is (was, but still is) just JavaScript errr ECMAScript 3. All your points are valid, but it’s a lot better than xml’s api, confusing whitespacing/attr/element, and huge complexity. Simple is better, and json is def. lacking in some points, but in general it’s easier to work with than xml (or at least getting started with)