I agree. We stay away from posting in the main Smarter Mail forum since the participation seems to be the general or novice user. Add to the fact we preder not to publicly discuss admin type issues. A past dialog with their support about enforcement of admin limits proved to be very frustrating. I found the responses from SmarterMail support depends who is answering the question. A power user group that was restricted or something close to it would be welcome, especially if Bryon Grosz or someone with his experience facilitated the group. A Declude rep would be essential part of the group too.
Mike Jaworski -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Doherty Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:58 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: port forwarding Hi, Matt- I think your analysis is spot-on. They have a lot of naive and relatively naive users on the forums, and they surely get a lot of marginal input from that source. Some of the better companies have a group of power users that they rely on for beta testing and serious input on the product as it evolves. I would hope that they have such a group, although I am not aware of it if they do. -d ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <Declude.JunkMail@declude.com> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: port forwarding > Dave, > > I agree, the product is definitely continuing to evolve and they are > pretty good at doing a lot of things, but they aren't good at handling > support issues, especially from power users with an eye for detail. They > didn't get the issues with auth-only port 587 until that exploded on this > list despite repeated requests on their own message board and the fact > that this was not only useful for shutting off unauthenticated access to a > server, but also the standard way of implementing the submission port. > > I think this comes from the fact that they have a lot of control panel > hosting customers using their software, and those users are typically not > tweakers like we are. I don't think that there is a lot of interest on > their part in getting direction from the community as a result of the > general dynamic. I have seen a lot of short-sighted/impractical feature > requests from users on their message list, yet I'm sure that those > requesting such things feel that their requests are just as important as > ours. It's likely hard for them to differentiate, or maybe because of the > typical issues that they see are more on the side of the user that they > don't tend to think so deeply about this stuff. It sound like they really > didn't understand the nature of this bug and assumed it was a user error, > or didn't bother to read deeply enough into the unintended affects. > > What you and Gary have done however seems like the best way to > approach > it. Sort of like yelling to get attention, but yelling detail and being > persistent instead of just getting angry and spouting obscenities. I > would understand them not fixing it immediately if it is complicated for > them to do so, which it may be, but I wouldn't understand a conscious > decision to leave things as is indefinitely. > > Matt > > --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
