There’s also something to be said for gut feeling. The whole thread was sketchy af. It was really uncomfortable how pushy they were.
I agree.
They were very insistent, not to say oppressive, which struck me at the time as rather… suspicious.
Also, when they were proposed, they didn’t even have the basic email configurations: no DNSSEC/DANE, no CAA, no MTA-STS.
Then they implemented everything (or almost everything) that was requested, but I think this is a mistake, because they met the criteria not because they believed in it, but because they wanted to be listed.
When there was criticism, the response was: “We worked hard on it, it breaks our hearts.”
They delivered new features very fast (for 4 products), which may have seemed interesting at first, but when compared with other services, it was strange to see such a difference. I’ve never used Skiff, but from what I’ve read, there was some potential, but the product delivered was far from accomplished, looking more like a pile of new features.
Claiming to be open source (which I personally don’t care about) when it clearly wasn’t.
Repeated requests for details of the security audit.
I have serious doubts about the “GPDR compliance” they claimed.
Quite aggressive communication with competitors. Far from being the only ones, but it bothers me.
Also, I think you need to consider something else in the future. Only Skiff Mail was recommended, but Skiff was a bundle of services. Even if you only recommend one product, in this case the main one, people will be tempted (economically logical) to use the other products. But the other products, Drive and Page, didn’t seem to meet the criteria of the other sections.
I think it’s important to be more careful with bundle services recommendations.