[chaps]

I pitched an idea like this years ago to essentially backfill one ticketing system to shiny new system that could read an email inbox. The idea was that if we dropped an email in that inbox with its desired format for each old ticket's updates, the new system would do all the necessary inserts and voila. They told me no -- not because of any technical reason, but because their email infrastructure was required to be audited by the SEC, they would have opened themselves up to significantly more auditing. Instead, I ended up having to do it through painful, painful SQL.

Lesson being, that sometimes there are unexpected reasons why a specific piece of technology shouldn't be used.

[aabbcc1241]

You're not allowed to use SMTP without calling it email ?

It sounds like one not allowed to use http for restful APIs without calling it a website. (And that org require website to be audit to fulfill accessibility measurement for physical disability)

[chaps]

For the record, I disagreed with them also and pushed back pretty aggressively and found workarounds to the audit problem. But CTO and CIO basically took it as a challenge against their authority and denied me at all points.

[darkerside]

Weren't these all emails already? Weren't you required to retain them for the SEC even before falling into this specific (hypothetical) inbox?

[user5994461]

It's not clear from the message whether the software is setting up their own email system, if so it will need to be audited and certified, which is a major hassle.

Either way, the auditors and the infrastructure might not want to handle an order of magnitude more traffic (API usage is really in a different league than occasional human email). Expect all emails to have to be stored for around a decade.

[chaps]

For the original system, no, they were not emails.