We need better client support for JMAP. Apple Mail, Thunderbird, Outlook (as if), and so on. I'm surprised some of the smaller ones like Canary or Spark don't implement it as a product differentiator.
replies(3):
You don't need major providers to support it, they support SMTP and that's how messages are relayed. JMAP is just so you: the client, can fetch your mail from wherever you host your mail.
I’ve got a friend who’s been pitching me on building a new email client for years. “I’ll do it if we exclusively use JMAP.” “okay does that include Gmail and Apple/iCloud accounts?” “Nope.”
I could sort of see dual-supporting Gmail's proprietary API and JMAP, but unless the #2-5 competitors support it… what’s the point? (sorry to put on the pessimism hat)
To be honest, I’m not sure why end-users would want JMAP for e-mail access.
It would be interesting if they do successfully roll out all of these additional RFC proposals providing a cohesive “groupware” protocol covering calendering, contacts, file shares, etc, we see notable server implementations, and interest is enough to drive client support.
That’s a lot of “ifs”.
People say things like that, and I wonder if I’ve just been living in a gilded tower of using Apple Mail with decent IMAP server implementations.
I’m also pretty familiar with the wire protocol and its implementation — it’s never struck me as particularly horrible.
A new protocol isn’t likely to solve the problem of poorly implemented clients and servers — e.g. Google doesn’t really care about good IMAP support, so they’re unlikely to care much about JMAP, either. They just want you to use their webapp.
Shameless plug for a client with true offline-first IMAP support:
Mail.app is what NeXT used internally, and Apple uses to this day AFAIK. Steve Jobs historically paid a lot of attention to it and wasn’t shy about weighing in on any changes.
Most of the complaints that I’ve heard about it seemed to stem from poor IMAP servers (e.g. Gmail), but it sounds like your knowledge in the space would be a lot more detailed and recent than mine, so I would be very interested in your thoughts.
UIDs don't change, but of course they can be deleted so it's a gappy list, meaning you can request even quite a large looking range of UIDs and get nothing back.
Message numbers change in every session, and also change every time you get an EXPUNGE. They're basically an ordered list without gaps, so you do a memmove at the offset of the EXPUNGE each time you get an expunge.
There are efforts like UIDONLY (RFC9586) to avoid having to keep that mapping at all, and there's OBJECTID (RFC8474) to let you cache a lot more even when UIDs are changed or when messages are moved between folders.