Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?

[Matt]

Just an FYI, Barry did call me this afternoon, and while the exact approach that they would take wasn't shared, it was clear that he understood the general need.  This has only become an issue for us because of the change in how things are released as interims were formerly plentiful, very quick to be published, and Scott had laid down the law concerning his unwillingness to provide documentation for interim releases.  Not that long ago there was no such thing as a broadcast announcement (if I recall correctly), and only major issues (bugs and fixes for new important issues such as virus detection) were announced to the list.  Now CPHZ has the resources to do all of these things better (broadcast notifications, better documentation, etc.), but this caught them at a stage where they had not yet developed a process to deal with such things, possibly not fully understood the implications, and of course the holiday helped to compound the issue. I was just trying to piece together my opinions in order to influence the decision as to how to implement this.  Since they do look at feedback and at least Barry and Scott do monitor this list, I think it's important for people to indicate how they would like to see such things handled.  If this was Ipswitch that we were talking about, our expectations would have been to hear virtually nothing until a week or two later when the hotfix came out, and if the issue was not so widespread, expecting a fix would be assuming too much in many cases. My expectation is that the response to the need will be calculated, but obviously not as timely as some of us might have expected.  It's probably good that people haven't given up on having high expectations for them like we have for others :) Matt Bill Landry wrote: I agree with your comments, Matt. The other thing that has frustrated me is the fact that a bug will be fixed in an interim release and no mention of it will be made on the list until someone else complains about the problem on the list. Then there would come a response, "oh, that was fixed two months ago in interim release x.xx". When bugs are reported to Declude that affect how the product functions, Declude should make it a point to report those issues to its user base, or at least to the list. They should also announce immediately when a bug has been fixed so that we don't sit around twiddling our thumbs waiting for a fix that's been available for two week or two months, or struggling with a problem that's been fixed. I held my tongue on this one, but was quite astounded that Declude did not send out a customer notification immediately after this bug was reported. Especially since this is a test that is enabled by default in the basic global.cfg. I would venture to guess that a lot of people have their tests pretty tightly configured, so that even a small weight addition could trigger hold, or worse, delete actions to be taken. User need to be notified right away about bugs like this so that they can decide if they need to make changes or not. Heck, we even had people thinking that there were problems with JunkMail plug-ins like Sniffer. Would have saved everyone time and frustration had a notification message been sent out immediately to all customers. The other thing that has bothered me about this particular situation is the rationalizing/excuses that have been posted as to why action was not taken sooner. I would feel much better if Declude would have just owned up to the fact that they dropped the ball on this one and promised to do better next time. Oh well, just my unsolicited opinion (they're a dime a dozen, you know)... Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <Declude.JunkMail@declude.com> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? R. Scott Perry wrote: The main reason this wasn't done was because it wasn't clear that this was going to be as big an issue for our customers as it turned out to be. The thought was that since this is normally a relatively minor test, anyone that it does affect adversely would just comment out the test. IMO, anything that has a measurable detrimental affect on all systems and all E-mail is very well within the bounds of what needs to be communicated from my perspective, even if it is only scored at one point in a default config. Not even a second thought. My issue was similar to Kami's where I was using the test is combinations to add extra weight, and the bug had the effect of making a false positive with a single test much worse. It would have taken me hours to clean everything up if I had not known about it until this morning. Even regarding other far more minor bugs; I've spent many wasted hours trying to diagnose what was going on with bugs that were already known to Declude. If such information was available to me by list or by site of known issues, I would certainly save myself time and also prevent other issues from occurring that I wasn't aware of. Take for example the Subject parsing bug that was discovered with the introduction of Yahoo's Domain Keys. I had two other people report to me issues with my GIBBERISHSUB filter because of this bug, and at first when presented with it, I didn't realize that this was the bug that was reported on this list until I looked at it for about 15 minutes and suddenly remembered. So something as minor as the bug that was primarily affecting only messages from Yahoo, and was mostly only causing issues with a somewhat common custom filter, in fact had some effect. I'm afraid that everyone running GIBBERISHSUB right now is scoring the majority of messages from Yahoo because of this, a fact probably completely overlooked at Declude when determining what to do with it. I think what is best is to allow us to determine what information is useful and what isn't, but naturally within a reasonable limit. I consider having access to brief descriptions of all known bugs upon discovery to be highly valuable, and a time saver for myself as well as something that will help me improve my QOS. I would prefer this information to be 'pushed' to me in E-mail, but I would be happy with it any way that I could get it. If you do decide to push it, you might want to include the option to join a list for this purpose as part of a more generalized announcement or in the footer for the listserv. I'll bet that if made aware of the option, a large number if not most Declude admins would choose it. Matt -- ===================================================== MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ ===================================================== --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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. -- ===================================================== MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =====================================================