Quote:
Originally Posted by BritTim
I am not trying to diss any proposed solution. We can do with some creative thinking. Unfortunately, I think the assumption that the differences are only in the web interface is flawed. There are also differences in the backend (for instance, with spam filtering).
|
Throughout all of this, I've really been scratching my head from a technical perspective in wondering exactly what is so complicated about Member accounts that would lead FastMail to taking this step (assuming, of course, that FastMail's stated goal to "simplify our internal architecture" is all there is to this).
As others have pointed out, I would certainly hope there's more to this than a couple of rows in a database, or the paltry 16MB of storage that's allocated to each Member-level account. Back-end account differences such as spam filtering would account for some differences in complexity, and of course require that they maintain old chunks of code that have probably
never been updated. However, as others have pointed out, there would be other ways to solve this rather than cutting these accounts off at the knees, such as bringing Member accounts to the same core feature-set that paid accounts now have while still limiting things like storage capacity — I can't imagine special code being required to set lower quotas, for example.
However, I also can't help but wonder if perhaps a bigger part of the reason is that FastMail has chosen to leave Member accounts on older server architecture, and the time has come to retire that architecture. If this is the case, then FastMail is left with the choice between actually
migrating a bunch of 16MB "legacy" accounts onto new architecture — systems that may not even support the same features or operate on the same database/mailstore platform — or simply "cutting bait" and discontinuing these accounts entirely so they can take these old systems offline. I can see this especially being true if the "limited number of remaining 'Member' users" are the only reason that some old servers in the corner of the data centre are even still running.
Again, I have no idea what's actually going on, but as somebody who has worked in IT for about 30 years and built many large e-mail systems, this explanation makes the most sense as to why FastMail would take such a step — I can't believe they're capricious enough to just discontinue Member accounts merely because they don't feel like supporting them anymore, and would like to believe that there are bigger factors at play. Migrating data between disparate systems is not a fun task at the best of times, so I can understand the reluctance to do that. Trust me, I've been there —
many times.
All of that having been said, I still don't think this lets FastMail off the hook. I have absolutely zero knowledge of the complexities that FastMail may actually be facing with Member-level accounts, so I'm totally "armchair-quarterbacking" here.... but my personal take is that FastMail really should "do the right thing" here and find a way to continue to support these Member accounts in some fashion. While they may not be
legally obligated to do so, this seems like a really great opportunity for them to be the good guys.