FYI, I am sending this to the LIst and Directly to Jason. On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 16:47 +0100, Jason Meers wrote: > Why is this list so abusive?
It actually depends on what you term abusive. To me the reason it is far different from the "Commercial Support World". These Commercial support stuff is in fact *PAID* FOR and Damn Well Better Be Non-Abusive. Especially since you have *PAID* for the product and PAID for commercial support. Typically you get a whitewash and some pretty flowers from the support teams for Commercial SMTP/MTA products. Yes, nothing says welcome to paying (hyarge amounts of money, in some cases) for stuff you don't know how to fix yourself. Wow, and you don't even get the benefit of properly documented products to begin with. Think about this, if you "commercial" product was as well documented, would you infact buy support at the costs associated with that? I know I would not (and don't) because I do have of documentation. Try this visualization a moment: Microsoft Exchange, a "well documented" system... many undocumented features. Many features that are critical to well running system. You pay $OMFG_SUPPORT fees, either yearly or per incident. Per incident is ay a minimum of $150. Not to mention Costs for Said Software to Begin with, which by my calulation is $50+ per seat. Okay, you have a unique problem, you want to reduce the allowed "recipients to" at your post-office beyond what the RFCs state is proper. But you find using the interfaces you have been given, it is not able to happen. You call support, the immiediately "get on this". Finding the problem is ot really a problem as, more of a preference to do something "wrong"... they tell you it is a feature enhancement, but since it is "wrong", you won't ever get it. So, let me say you have a 20K seat exchange system (yeah, it is stretching there), $750K just for the seat licenses(based on MLP/OLP scaling) (plus all of the server licenses and hardware costs, plus the "Windows" server licenses)... plus you yearly costs of Software Maintenance of ~ $200K/year, not to mention the 10 odd Windows admins you'll have to hire and the 4 or so Exchange ONLY admins you'll have to hire just to support this system... Just for Bascia Mail-handling (not to mention the Outlook support for Helpdesk and the Scheduling users will discover) Reflecting on The Exim-Solution for basic mail services, for those 20K users. 1/4 The hardware would support 10 times the users(as I see this ratio myslef), Plus I use Courier-{POP,IMAP, and mailfilter} for actual client store (mail is on server, copies on client for offline use) You can literally integrate any kind of non-rfc compliant restrictions or features you want. Add Virus-scanning, Attachments scanning, greylisting, Whitelisting, blacklist... redlisting, bluelisting... even green-eggs-and-ham-listing. Server-side mail sorting, Spam identification and sorting, DCC stuff, Pyzor, Razor, SPF, PMS. All of this with Exim. At no cost (or very little in donation form) for "free stuff" or for pay with commercial equivalents. Now, remembering what I just previously types, please read my responses to you. > <rant> > People post to this list because they need help and advice. > They are not lazy or selfish, just lost. True, most people are lost when they first some here. I was. And I asked many, many, manhy questions that *ARE* in-fact answer in the FAQ or the spec.txt. Or are aided in explanation by the O[Rielly (ancient) Exim book, or by the More recent book Philip Wrote about Exim 4, though the second book was written and publidh AFTER I really was using Exim. So a big kudos for them coming here in any case. > A swift "RTFM" slap across the face has become almost the standard reply > to anyone who knows less than you, this is exim-users not exim-arrogance > or exim-immortals. Please refer to my previous Typings here. This is NOT a commercially paid/supported for forum. Provided mostly by Volunteers and the Exim Core teams ( Philip, Tony...etc) and Even the Debian Exim4 Maintainers add to the list here. People like me, that have a great respect for the authors of Exim for, making exim's flexing powers (()FLEX()) very TIMTOWTDI capable. Exim-Users, given enough time to get pointed in the right direction with "RT(TFP_)M on this page/location" is a VERY powerful way to help people learn to find things for themselves. Eventually the *DO* indeed become EXIM-Immortals with Plenty of EXIM-Arrogance. Sort of why Debian Users/Admins are sometimes referred to as Dweebian or Snobbians. Once you drink, swish and swallow the red-Kool-Aid there is no going back. If these people don't understand that GREAT documentation (as what Exim has) is far from "Commercial" Quality documnetation. Most (99%) of answers can be gleaned from Exim's Docs (Kudos to Phillip on that high standard), which is why most people get the RTFM answer. Usually with near exact locations of where in those FMs. > Is it so hard to believe that someone can *try* to understand Exim and > *try* to understand the specs and still need help. No. It is not hard to believe, mainly because there SO MUCH there. I only know the parts I use really well. Beyond that I RTFM. Or make it up as I go and then discovre someone else has done a similar. > The documentation for Exim is fantastic, absolutely NO DOUBT about that, > but how many of you can take in every part of the 452 page specification > and understand every part of it. If I only had to maintain an MTA, I could easily recite it. > If Exim was a such a "no-brainer" this list wouldn't exist and nobody > would need to be subscribed. Exim4 should work out of the box, period. The build process and example confs are good enough to run a small host MTA without much screwing around. > How many of you who have previously posted an RTFM reply have NEVER > asked the list for help or advice on a topic that was covered by the > manual? Please stand up and make yourself known, it's easy for us to check. I have posted RTFM questions. Though I didn't know it at the time, and took offense to them as well. That is until I realised I was getting the ANSWERS I realy did need. (except now that I use, what is termed as Debian's Black magic, most of my questions are asked on the Debian Exim list) > Before any of you tell me RTFM means "fine" manual check the archives it > is typed out in full in some of the 200+ threads that contain the phrase > *at least once* in the last 3-4 years. Wow, ONLY once. I'da thought many more times. > I am having to defend my right to use open source software at work > because a well known worldwide consultancy has highlighted to my > management that the "support" and "community" I am so fond of are > sometimes more abusive than supportive (this list was mentioned). Hence > using open source presents too much of a risk to the business and should > be replaced ASAP. This is just plain stupid, the "worldwide" conslutancy has a proprietary solution they'd like you to use. Why then are they supporting Debian in certain ways, Ubuntu in other ways, SuSE is additional ways, Actuall paying for the Gentoo Kernel package maintainer... and directly employing a certain couple of other Kernel Developers. > This attitude is self-harming. Well, is it maybe because the same questions get asked... OVER and OVER and OVER. With the same answer being a finely point RTM response? > Exim is a fantastic product and the level of knowledge you guys hold on > it is second to none, but we are all responsible adults, we don't have > to humiliate people who are not as knowledgeable as us. It is NOT humiliation, it is a matter of factly way of handling re-dundant information, or IOW, Frequently Asked Questions. > If someone doesn't know what it is they are looking for, how do they > know which part of the manual to read without asking the list? Which they then get. In a Matter ofact, style that sometimes offends many people. But, since Vounteers are typically answer your question for FREE, WTF would you expect, especially when MANY coming here the first time use a condescending tone in the request/question/threat in the first place. > If someone asks a stupid question you can choose to: > A) Answer it > B) Ignore it > You don't *have* to be abusive Doing A) with a terse but informative response IS NOT being abusive. It is being effective and effcient. I used to think it was offensive until I really understood, they WERE INDEED fixing my problems. > If your child had been humiliated at school for asking a teacher a > question that had already been covered in a text book you wouldn't > accept it, why here? No, I wouldn't tolerate it. But if the teacher said something terse and informative, I really can't argue that being bad. There is too much prevalent "I WANT THE ANSWER NOW, don't explain it to me or show where to look for it! I JUST WANT THE ANSWER." My kids hate me for giving them all the info they need to figure out the problem, where as the just want me to DO the work for them. If I just gave you the answer and you come back telling me it didn't work, then what good was it in the first place. Now if I tell you to RTFM at chapter 12, page 11, paragraph 2 and the surrounding text, that will answer your question... How is that ABUSIVE? Terse and a bit ABRASIVE, but not abusive. > </rant> Now, please tak in the whole picture of my response to you BEFORE reply back. Also please help those being the power that be my whole story and explanation > Jason Meers > (someone who has read the book and the spec several times and still > needs help from time to time) I read things all the time. Especially things in Exim I do "once in a while", I still ask questions. Marc Haber and Andreas (cu and" Okay, I said it here." reas) Metzler answer most of my questions now. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/