Inquiry: After changing to PAID

csl1010 · 21 Jan 2002, 08:59 PM

"$19.95 per year (short contracts available). 50 Meg quota. "

We currently have 100MB, if i got a full account, it's only 50MB! So IF i got 80MB mails in my account now, do i need to delete 30MB to lower back the appropiate level 50MB?

PS: Thanks Jemery, I will also pay for fastmail.fm after Runbox

robmueller · 22 Jan 2002, 06:16 AM

Yes, though if you need more space, you have the option of either getting an enhanced account (which has 150M of space - http://fastmail.fm/docs/about.html), or paying individually for just more space (we haven't worked out the $/M price yet)

Anyway, most space is usually taken by stuff in the Trash folder which can be emptied. Additionally, using the purge/archive screen, you can easily zip up older and/or larger emails and just store them at home.

Rob

Jeremy Howard · 22 Jan 2002, 02:14 PM

And you'll get to use your 100MB for two months after the commercial launch as a little "thankyou".

OtaconTV · 23 Jan 2002, 07:58 AM

Where can I see how much space I have used? Has this been added yet? Sorry, I don't know because I've been away from these forums.

basilmaven · 23 Jan 2002, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by robmueller
Yes, though if you need more space, you have the option of either getting an enhanced account (which has 150M of space - http://fastmail.fm/docs/about.html), or paying individually for just more space (we haven't worked out the $/M price yet)
Rob

I enquired about this before, but the more I think about it the more I believe the 2 proposed paid plans don't offer me enough space for file storage yet at the same time, waaay more MB than I'd conceivably need for email alone.

I understand we'll be able to get more MB, but I'd be under utilizing the mail storage and maxing out on the file storage. If possible I'd like a 50/50 mail/storage option. But I guess it depends what it takes FM to be profitable and also what the cost/MB of additional storage is.

basilmaven · 23 Jan 2002, 09:39 PM

Jeremy, Rob, anybody??
Is the proposed proportioning of mail/storage MB (50/5 & 150/25)skewed too much to email?

***Edwin*** · 23 Jan 2002, 09:43 PM

If you think about it, the file storage is in general much more likely to lead to high bandwidth usage than the mail storage.

If you had e.g. a 75MB mailbox and a 75MB quota for file storage, then just filling your file storage allocation ONCE and downloading it again would take 150MB of bandwidth - you could send thousands of normal emails in the same bandwidth!

Since bandwidth = money (from the provider's viewpoint) I think there is some very sharp logic behind the breakdown.

Jeremy Howard · 24 Jan 2002, 04:55 AM

Edwin's right. And in addition, we want to provide personal file storage, without becoming a web host. We want to focus on providing the best possible email service first. The file storage is designed to be enough to support that goal.

It will be possible to purchase upgrades to file storage space separately for those that really need to.

basilmaven · 24 Jan 2002, 06:07 AM

Thanks, guys, for the clear justification. The bandwidth issue is definitely a concern. I don't do big file transfers very often if I can avoid it being on a dial-up, but instead, lots of little files that I like to keep handy. The 50/5 is too small for my storage needs. 25/25 would be perfect, but I guess I'll be opting for additional MB or the 150/25 depending on the cost difference.

**psalzer** · 24 Jan 2002, 11:06 AM

What about attaching the files and e-mailing them to yourself? I'm finding it's quicker to do that in Fastmail than to upload them to either ureach space or yahoo briefcase, so that's what I've been doing with files the last few days.

basilmaven · 24 Jan 2002, 11:20 AM

Good call, psalzer

That's a possibility. I could set up folders in mailbox identical to what I'd have in file storage.

Can the archiving function in FM deal with attachments? If so it would be a snappy way to download several emails/files at once (if I understand the zipping/compressing feature correctly -- I haven't tried it yet.)

Say, wouldn't this email method use the same bandwidth as uploading? Better not tell Jeremy!

**psalzer** · 24 Jan 2002, 11:46 AM

I don't really know. I figure that if it's a very large file it could be a pain to do it that way if the object is to have the file available on the web. But for smallish files, Fastmail is very quick and it works well. I guess to be on the safe side, we won't mention it to Jeremy.

basilmaven · 24 Jan 2002, 11:53 AM

One thing unclear to me is if file storage have a "public" folder or is it strickly for the account holder?

Jeremy Howard · 24 Jan 2002, 01:18 PM

The archiving feature deals with attachments.

The folders feature will get a public folder as well as private. This extra is likely to be only for enhanced accounts, and likely to not be available in v1 of the file storage feature (since it's harder to track bandwidth in this case it'll be a little extra work).

basilmaven · 24 Jan 2002, 09:49 PM

Thanks muchly, Jeremy.

21 Jan 2002, 08:59 PM	#1
csl1010 Essential Contributor Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: U.K. & Hong Kong Posts: 284	Inquiry: After changing to PAID "$19.95 per year (short contracts available). 50 Meg quota. " We currently have 100MB, if i got a full account, it's only 50MB! So IF i got 80MB mails in my account now, do i need to delete 30MB to lower back the appropiate level 50MB? PS: Thanks Jemery, I will also pay for fastmail.fm after Runbox

22 Jan 2002, 06:16 AM	#2
robmueller Intergalactic Postmaster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 6,102 Representative of: Fastmail.FM	Yes, though if you need more space, you have the option of either getting an enhanced account (which has 150M of space - http://fastmail.fm/docs/about.html), or paying individually for just more space (we haven't worked out the $/M price yet) Anyway, most space is usually taken by stuff in the Trash folder which can be emptied. Additionally, using the purge/archive screen, you can easily zip up older and/or larger emails and just store them at home. Rob

22 Jan 2002, 02:14 PM	#3
Jeremy Howard Ultimate Contributor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 11,501	And you'll get to use your 100MB for two months after the commercial launch as a little "thankyou".

23 Jan 2002, 07:58 AM	#4
OtaconTV Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 66	Where can I see how much space I have used? Has this been added yet? Sorry, I don't know because I've been away from these forums.

23 Jan 2002, 09:39 PM	#6
basilmaven Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 196	Jeremy, Rob, anybody?? Is the proposed proportioning of mail/storage MB (50/5 & 150/25)skewed too much to email?

23 Jan 2002, 09:43 PM	#7
*Edwin* Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: UK Posts: 3,118	If you think about it, the file storage is in general much more likely to lead to high bandwidth usage than the mail storage. If you had e.g. a 75MB mailbox and a 75MB quota for file storage, then just filling your file storage allocation ONCE and downloading it again would take 150MB of bandwidth - you could send thousands of normal emails in the same bandwidth! Since bandwidth = money (from the provider's viewpoint) I think there is some very sharp logic behind the breakdown.

24 Jan 2002, 04:55 AM	#8
Jeremy Howard Ultimate Contributor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 11,501	Edwin's right. And in addition, we want to provide personal file storage, without becoming a web host. We want to focus on providing the best possible email service first. The file storage is designed to be enough to support that goal. It will be possible to purchase upgrades to file storage space separately for those that really need to.

24 Jan 2002, 06:07 AM	#9
basilmaven Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 196	Thanks, guys, for the clear justification. The bandwidth issue is definitely a concern. I don't do big file transfers very often if I can avoid it being on a dial-up, but instead, lots of little files that I like to keep handy. The 50/5 is too small for my storage needs. 25/25 would be perfect, but I guess I'll be opting for additional MB or the 150/25 depending on the cost difference.

24 Jan 2002, 11:06 AM	#10
psalzer Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,654	What about attaching the files and e-mailing them to yourself? I'm finding it's quicker to do that in Fastmail than to upload them to either ureach space or yahoo briefcase, so that's what I've been doing with files the last few days.

24 Jan 2002, 11:20 AM	#11
basilmaven Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 196	Good call, psalzer That's a possibility. I could set up folders in mailbox identical to what I'd have in file storage. Can the archiving function in FM deal with attachments? If so it would be a snappy way to download several emails/files at once (if I understand the zipping/compressing feature correctly -- I haven't tried it yet.) Say, wouldn't this email method use the same bandwidth as uploading? Better not tell Jeremy!

24 Jan 2002, 11:46 AM	#12
psalzer Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,654	I don't really know. I figure that if it's a very large file it could be a pain to do it that way if the object is to have the file available on the web. But for smallish files, Fastmail is very quick and it works well. I guess to be on the safe side, we won't mention it to Jeremy.

24 Jan 2002, 11:53 AM	#13
basilmaven Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 196	One thing unclear to me is if file storage have a "public" folder or is it strickly for the account holder?

24 Jan 2002, 01:18 PM	#14
Jeremy Howard Ultimate Contributor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 11,501	The archiving feature deals with attachments. The folders feature will get a public folder as well as private. This extra is likely to be only for enhanced accounts, and likely to not be available in v1 of the file storage feature (since it's harder to track bandwidth in this case it'll be a little extra work).

24 Jan 2002, 09:49 PM	#15
basilmaven Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 196	Thanks muchly, Jeremy.