I would like to suggest the following changes to the email services criteria with the main goal being to improve the recommendations and trying to put some of the softer requirements into words.
Changes:
-
Move ‘Published security audits from a reputable, third-party firm.’ from Best Case into Minimum to Qualify.
-
Add ‘Must have been operating for X years’ to both the minimum and best case criteria in the Trust section, with different values.
-
Add ‘Should not use bad faith / cherry-picked comparisons to competitors.’ to best case in Marketing.
Reasoning:
-
For email services the security aspect is probably more important than for any other service recommended on this site, as such I think a third party audit should be required for even the minimum case.
It is also something that regardless of e2e encryption you still require confidence in the server for as in the majority of cases it will be receiving and sending emails without e2e encryption. -
The longevity of email services is extremely important, especially for users that do not use their own domain. Accurately measuring whether a service will continue to exist is a very difficult thing to do but I do think simply the time they have been operating for is a reasonable metric to use.
These numbers would be somewhat arbitrary but my suggestion is 2 years for the minimum case and 5 for the best case. If anyone feels they have a better way to ensure longevity of a service I would be keen to know. -
I strongly dislike those comparisons many services use where they cherry pick a list of features that they have and then do a ‘comparison’ to other services which of course don’t have the exact same list of features they have. I find these misleading as they can be done in a way that makes any service looks better than any other.
This isn’t specific to email and I would be keen to see this added to other sections too. These are very common so I am curious to hear peoples opinions here.
Let me know what you think.