[gjmveloso]

JMAP is the best email protocol out there that nobody uses (besides Fastmail), sadly.

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.

[mort96]

Sadly, Google and Microsoft are in the business of getting their users to use their own gmail and outlook clients. They don't want to be invisible IMAP/JMAP back-ends, they want to own your e-mail experience.

[CuriousSkeptic]

Besides, MS already have their own solution that goes way beyond just mail: Microsoft Graph

[stonogo]

And they standardized MTA-STS to ensure that you must use web technologies if you want to use email.

[joecool1029]

What about Amazon? They could do it with AWS. It seems odd now to think they haven't offered a service like this yet.

[dgeiser13]

Gmail supports IMAP.

[hyhconito]

I think the first "big tech" adopter would be Apple if anything. Their entire email stack is standard protocols.

But you have to ask on that scale, what would it bring them other than change if everything already works fine?

[Mailtemi]

JMAP uses fewer resources server-side, and with their scale, it will probably reduce operating costs. But it will depends on how much they will save compared with devel/migration costs.

[noprocrasted]

> 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.

[amluto]

I have no idea whether JMAP is any good, but I find all the hype utterly baffling. JMAP is supposedly awesome. There is real thoughtful engineering going into offline support: https://www.fastmail.com/blog/offline-mail-storage/

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!

[radicality]

Similarly, I wish I could find some iOS mail app that allows me to have the have the full mailbox locally. I use Gmail with the Mail app on iOS, and tried multiple mail apps to try to find one that will download the whole mailbox with all attachments and let me search it locally quickly, but seems that doesn’t exist. On Mac I’m using Mailmate and liking it.

[throw0101b]

> It would make so easier and reliable to have a single client that works really well across personal and business email accounts, for example.

Does not Thunderbird work with Gmail/Microsoft/etc? Does not Apple's Mail.app?

[jeltz]

Not well. At least Thunderbird with Gmail does not work very well.

[antifarben]

StalwartMail supports JMAP out of the box