> If you just want a reliable mail service, just use...
non-Fastmail options that are a lot cheaper for multiple mailboxes and provide more, like Posteo, Mailbox.org, Runbox.com, Mailfence, Migadu, etc.
non-Fastmail options that are a lot cheaper for multiple mailboxes and provide more, like Posteo, Mailbox.org, Runbox.com, Mailfence, Migadu, etc.
Thanks for mentioning some alternatives, but I've just checked the first example and it does not support custom domains (which Fastmail does), so it does not "provide more".
Just for arguments’ sake, I could argue that Fastmail’s privacy stance and policy don’t matter much compared to Posteo because of what’s written on their websites as well as which jurisdictions these are located in, and hence Posteo is better for privacy. I could also argue that for non-technical people, having a custom domain and managing it is a pain, compared to just choosing some domain from a list of predefined domains in a drop down and not having to worry about domain renewals, MX records, etc.
I’m not saying that custom domains are bad (they do allow you to switch to another provider easily), but there are trade offs to consider in both cases, and hence what may be “more” for one may be “less” for another.
Also consider the price difference when multiple mailboxes are required. Fastmail becomes quite expensive very soon compared to the others.
If you want to apply logic like that, you have to apply it correctly. To falsify a universal claim you only need one counterexample, but the original poster never used a universal term (all, never, etc). If it wasn't a universal claim then you can't apply the rules for universal quantification to it.
More to the point, my comment wasn't attacking your logic, but that you seemed to dismiss the entire list based on the one example. I didn't see where you mentioned you were happy with the alternatives and only critical of the one, if that was the case then I just missed the larger context and I apologize.