I'm sorry Schmuel, normally I agree with your point on things, but I really have to disagree here. It's not like I have no experience with other sites, we have hundreds of clients, and I have been to well over 80% of them in person, and I can state without much worry that the percentages would not be on my side that the far greater percentage (approaching 100%) would never agree to giving a vendor access to their site to "check up" on them.
Even when we go to a site as the "IBM" people, they go way out of their way to make sure that we stay focused on the problem and don't just "look around". As a "non IBM" vendor, it would be even less likely that the client would just open their site to us. In this case I hardily agree with the view that the the vendor would be told to go pound salt. Imagine the security issues that would have to be dealt with to just give them an ID that has the capability to check. Brian On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 05:02:06 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <[email protected]> wrote: >In <[email protected]>, on >12/28/2011 > at 07:58 PM, Brian Westerman <[email protected]> said: > >>I really don't think any site would readily agree to have their site >>"audited" by a software company for compliance. > >Why not? > >>After the silence, the sale would disappear. :) > >Perhaps at your site. > >-- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT > ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> >We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. >(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
