Subject: [Jmap] IMAP transition

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 13:35:42 -0600

After 19 Years CMU Discontinues Cyrus IMAP In Favor Of Microsoft 
Exchange And Gmail

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/05/06/1726259/after-19-years-cmu-discontinues-cyrus-imap-in-favor-of-microsoft-exchange-and-gmail

Discussion about jmap has been about improvements over imap.  Perhaps it 
should include a wider scope to improve likelihood of adoption?

(To the extent that folk think the existing jmap targets already achieve 
that, it would be useful to document and explain the details.)

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 May 2017 22:19:25 -0000

>https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/05/06/1726259/after-19-years-cmu-discontinues-cyrus-imap-in-favor-of-microsoft-exchange-and-gmail

Keep in mind that Exchange and Gmail both provide IMAP servers for
people who want them, and that Google apps for education is free.  So
this is a decision to stop running their own data center, not one to
give up on IMAP.

R's,
John

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 07:26:40 -0600

Sorry I was not clear enough.  My question to the list was:

> Discussion about jmap has been about improvements over imap.  Perhaps it should include a wider scope to improve likelihood of adoption? 

The CMU event was intended as a trigger to the question:

      There is a market for mail server access that is larger than IMAP, 
involving one or more other protocols.

      Perhaps the jmap effort should consider features considered 
important in that larger market, in order to make jmap more broadly 
appealing (and useful)?

d/