|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sir_Cmpwn
2890 days ago
|
|
|
>Then your book is flawed and doesn't align with the actual definitions of "scam" and "email provider". Especially for the former, there's a much higher bar, and your arguments are far from meeting it. Let's define the requirements for the former, then. If someone claims to offer a service they don't, is that a scam? I think so. Now if we can justify the, by your own admission, weaker requirements for calling Protonmail "not an email provider", we've established they're a scam. An "email provider" that doesn't provide IMAP and SMTP isn't an email provider any more than Facebook's proprietary "free internet but only on Facebook" is "internet service". |
|
|
By your incredibly rigid definition, sure. Good thing the world doesn't live by your definition.
An email service provider is, based on the words alone, someone that provides email services. Do they allow for sending and receiving email from one or more email accounts they manage? Yes? Well then they're an email service provider. Many providers supported POP3 only for years, yet they were still called ESPs just fine, even without the IMAP support. Funny how that works.
This is going to be my final message on this, because your incredibly rigid and stubborn definitions and beliefs clearly leave no room for debate and nobody is going to change your mind because you are totally and completely right™, but what I will say is that if you care about this so much, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from making your own alternative that works the way you think it should. Just stop calling things scams because you disagree with their design decisions.