It would be great that the two big email providers (Google and Microsoft) implemented and supported it.
It would make so easier and reliable to have a single client that works really well across personal and business email accounts, for example.
But you have to ask on that scale, what would it bring them other than change if everything already works fine?
IMAP is absolutely terrible on unreliable connections. A connectionless protocol based on HTTP would do much better in those conditions.
And yet: at least as of a couple months ago, there isn’t actually any offline support! The Fastmail first party app does not work at all offline. Complete failure. Does not even try. Oh, and it has dramatically worse threading support than even Gmail or Outlook.
I don’t get it. POP3 is awful and kind of works offline. IMAP is old, clunky, and works fairly well offline. JMAP is supposedly the new hotness, but the paid first party experience will not even try to load offline. This is table stakes! Eudora could do this. Every version of Outlook ever could do this. Thunderbird can, and always could, do this. The usual command-line clients work offline if configured appropriately. Heck, Google went above and beyond and made Gmail’s webmail work quite well offline if you care to set it up, and I think they did a bunch of early work on service workers to make this possible. Fastmail, please stop pitching your fancy protocols until you can get your clients up to the state of the art as of twenty to thirty years ago.
edit: Huh, mobile offline support is in beta as of December 16. No way!
Does not Thunderbird work with Gmail/Microsoft/etc? Does not Apple's Mail.app?
Targeted, focused conferences like Inbox Love, with 150ish or fewer attendees, are by far my favorite because you can actually get to know folks, ideas flow more easily, and everyone is focused on approximately the same thing. Much better than huge, multi-track conferences. We should host more of those as an industry.
How come there are no free of cost email providers that support JMAP?
I know a couple of people who run large email stacks (500k+ users) and this isn’t on their radar and there is no interest in it. There is a little disdain as they are comp sci people and don’t like JSON at all (I share that concern).
Email is probably the most conservative, reluctant to change set of protocols there is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_b...
And it'd better stay that way, as it's also the most widely used set of standards for communication across borders, that people rely on about as much if not more than traditional telcos now.
(You should know why the common-sense comments are downvoted --- this is basically an advertisement article, and they don't like it when their $shiny_new_thing is actually shown to be worse than the existing solutions. A huge clue is when the adjective "modern" is thrown around like it's a good thing.)
They need to motivate people to use FastMail to boost JMAP adoption and they've failed to do that for a decade.
They post their 12 days of Christmas blog every year and never a new feature to be found.
If you can't add shiny features to your service with a new shiny protocol that promises to break down silos, then it doesn't stand a chance.
What will replace IMAP will be what changes email forever, and we've not seen that yet in an open protocol.
We should revisit Google / Apache Wave
Constantly reinventing things and piling on pointless features is one of the things I dislike most about Google, their chat solution is especially egregious for this. It only causes frustration and increases the time investment required to be proficient with the products.
I too like the feeling that they're stable. I guess they're just tactful with their additions.
I'm suggesting that a new protocol needs hype for adoption and reinventing email needs new capabilities
JMAP seems like exactly the protocol I’d want to use to avoid much of the IMAP pain, but there’s almost no ecosystem.
If I wrote an E-Mail client for JMAP, I’d basically make it for Fastmail and for Fastmail only - and I couldn’t even do so without paying Fastmail. That’s untenable, I’d be 100x better off targeting the GMail API.
An IMO perfect way to jumpstart adoption would be an IMAP-to-JMAP proxy, which I don’t think currently exists (maybe due to basic deficiencies in IMAP, I’m not sure). It would allow people waiting to develop and use modern clients relatively easily.
Currently the best way to get non first party JMAP infrastructure seems to be to host Stalwart (https://stalw.art/) and do some trickery to forward your E-Mails there, which hasn’t been worth the effort to me so far.
Without more email clients supporting it, mail providers don’t have any incentive to support JMAP. Mozilla Thunderbird started looking at JMAP but hasn’t progressed on that all these years.
> In 10 years time, I hope to post about how Cyrus and JMAP have taken over the world
I believe the biggest hurdles are other email clients and providers not adopting it. The biggest threat is Microsoft, as usual, pushing its own protocols and client and using FUD to brainwash CIOs into believing that any protocol outside its own is a major security threat that just cannot be handled.
If either Apple or Google could be convinced to implement and support JMAP, this could take off a lot faster.
I like Fastmail and use it because it provides a service, and does so well (which includes support you can actually reach out to and talk to a human who will actually help you). I also like that my identity and daily e-mail experience is in no way hard-linked to them. I have my own domain, and I use Thunderbird and K9-Mail (now also Thunderbird).
I also like that I can log onto to their website and do things there if needed. This is mostly managing masked e-mail addresses and the occasional check on my subscription settings.
And if you're going to fund development, also put it in Dovecot.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dovecot_(software)
It does seem to be in Cyrus, but I'm not sure what the marketshare of that software is nowadays:
They cited IMAP's complexity, high resource use,
JMAP is implemented using JSON APIs over HTTP
They complain about complexity, then add another two layers of complexity in their own protocol?
I think POP3 is the simplest standard, and have also written a basic IMAP client. Parsing IMAP isn't as easy as a binary protocol, but it's definitely not at the level of HTTP JSON bloat that seems to have infected all "modern" protocol designers. I can use POP3 reasonably easily from a netcat (and have done so many times in the past), and IMAP is a little harder but doable. I don't expect that to be doable for JMAP which is text-based like the other HTTP JSON bloatocols, but unlike the earlier text-based standards like SMTP POP3 IMAP IRC MSNP etc., it seems to have all the disadvantages of a text-based protocol but none of the advantages.
JSON is only excusable if your protocol is designed for webmail clients. Otherwise this is a case of the emperor having no clothes.
