<story><title>JMAP is on the home straight</title><url>https://fastmail.blog/2018/12/27/jmap-is-on-the-home-straight/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>stonogo</author><text>&amp;quot;The IETF likes separation of concerns&amp;quot; but they&amp;#x27;re letting Google et al. ram through MTA-STS, which fails to define a standard port number for SMTP-over-TLS and instead requires MTA implementations to &lt;i&gt;also&lt;/i&gt; be able to fetch port numbers over https, a completely unrelated protocol.&lt;p&gt;All because the authors believe mortal men are not capable of understanding DNSSEC.  Leaving aside the unholy alliance of Google + Microsoft + Verizon + Comcast, the fact that the IETF made Fastmail ditch &lt;i&gt;authentication&lt;/i&gt; from a mail protocol while letting Google subsume &lt;i&gt;DNS and web-based port knocking&lt;/i&gt; into &lt;i&gt;another&lt;/i&gt; mail protocol definitely tells me there&amp;#x27;s nobody behind the wheel any more.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m happy that the Fastmail team is doing work that excites them, but does anyone know if the IETF has any plans to use ports other than 443 ever again?</text></comment>
<story><title>JMAP is on the home straight</title><url>https://fastmail.blog/2018/12/27/jmap-is-on-the-home-straight/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>tjoff</author><text>I have not tried it or looked at it too closely (since neither my server nor client supports it). But I desperately hope that JMAP succeeds. It&amp;#x27;s exactly what email needs. IMAP and POP are just so inadequate that locking yourself into gmail&amp;#x2F;whatever is a reasonable choice.&lt;p&gt;With JMAP maybe we will actually see some interest in decent desktop and mobile clients for once. And also maybe we will have decent alternatives to the big players for non-techie people too.</text></comment>