|
I also feel the need to add my "Me Too" to this thread, so
IPswitch will not think there is only a few that are
dissatisfied.
I too have been lured into extending my SA in hopes of a
stable product coming out to upgrade to - ipswitch even acknowledged their
screwup early on and offered an extra few months to the SA's of those who
renewed... unfortunately those few extra months were not nearly enough.
IPSwitch should really smarten up and release a fix for
8.22 - After All the codebase cannot be all that much different if the same
vulnerability is in 2006.1 too.
Kevin, see if you cannot make Imail step back and gather
some sanity and issue a 8.22 patch.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jason Loven
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] It is worth it to buy the SA? I’m going to weigh in
on this at this point as well just so my vote is registered on the off chance
Ipswitch is monitoring this thread… Based on the fact that
I haven’t heard of an update even being reviewed for the 8.2x line I am
currently researching alternative mail hosting platforms. I was originally
holding off installing 2006 until it got stable but having a situation where I
am now the proud owner of a system that was installed less than 2 years ago with
a major vulnerability announced I am very angry that Ipswitch is leaving us
hanging on this. This is a core business option for us and certainly failures in
it are high profile and damaging for us. People will not be happy if they can’t
get their email because the server got owned by some script kiddie. It’s
inexcusable for a commercial software vendor to NOT weigh in on this as soon as
it was announced either to denounce the vuln or to accept responsibility and at
least provide a patch for the mainstream versions of their software. I’m sure
that the majority of Imail sites are not running 2006. How could they with how
unstable it has been? -Jason From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Gil Gomes I've been lurking in the weeds
watching this discussion very quickly pick up momentum. I thought I was
internally over-reacting in my perception that Ipswitch has become dollar driven
to the point that it's obviously become detrimental to their client base.
Apparently that isn't just my opinion. I've forced myself, for the past five
months, to use the webmail client that came with iMAIL 2006.03. There are
some issues that I just find mind boggling. For example...
1) When I
hit the key, I get double spaced. That's a very handy feature if you're
interested in double spacing every line in every email.
2) The sent
folder, at a glance, shows that all of the mail was sent from me, but not who it
was sent to. How does that happen? Is that
what Ipswitch QA thought their customers wanted?
There are issues with attachments that
I've been questioning for months, with no answer. I asked one of our sales
correspondents to use this client as it would solve a number of his
problems. After two weeks he explained that he'd much rather live with the
myriad of problems he was previously encumbered with than to have to use this
slow, buggy, irritating client. He also mentioned the fact that the main
screen constantly popped in front of the "New Message" screen while he was
typing a longish email... Another wonderful feature...
Is Ipswitch purposely under staffing
for this product? Does it have programmers with the wrong mindset putting
this together? Something is obviously going on over there that's making it
difficult to put out a quality product... bye for
now... With Microsoft, you are
not paying an annual service agreement over and above the purchase price. In
this instance Windows 95 is not a good example nor would Windows 2000 as they
both are much older products than version 8.x of IMail. Also, if those companies
who had the keys had service agreements with their clients then yes they should
be required to produce software to alleviate the need for the parallel port.
I may be mistaken but I seem to recall some court cases against Microsoft
that ended up requiring them to support software up to 4 years from its creation
and to maintain patches for the software for a 4 year period from the time of
the following upgrade. But then again I could be
mistaken. The problem with the
version 8.x Imail server also effects version 2006. 2006 is a massive rewrite
with minor changes made to certain parts of the code. I think Ipswitch got
caught with two generations of the product having problems and is not capable of
handling two different rewrites for patches. I do hope that Ipswitch
decides to reverse their decision to not support version 8.x and supplies the
fix for the smtp vulnerability to SA holders as that is part of what we are and
have been paying for so many years. This non-support stance has been evident
with Ipswitch management several times before this and has lost them a large
portion of the market to competing products. This move could loose them the
balance of their loyal base or cause a class action to be taken against them. I
hope that does not happen. Rick
Hogue Intent.Net From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of John T
(Lists) So if a vulnerability
is discovered in Windows 95, Microsoft should spend the time and resources
developing a patch to fix it? What about all those
software vendors that were using old style parallel port keys that became
obsolete when Windows XP came out? Should those software vendors have been
forced to provide entirely new versions of software and keys that were working
perfectly fine under DOS 6.22 or Windows 3.1 for
free? John
T eServices For
You "Seek, and ye shall
find!" -----Original
Message----- >> The answer is
obvious, time to drop Imail. << The only problem is that the
alternatives aren't exactly that great. SmarterMail looks like a great
product, but it's still lacking some of the fundamental elements of a corporate
mail server like TLS. They also remind me now of how IPswitch was 5 or 6
years ago. I'm afraid that if I jump ship to SM, in a few
years they'll start going down the same over-priced, feature-bloated,
performance-lacking, unstability-ridden road that Ipswitch (and Declude)
did. I've looked at the other alternative products and none are really
that viable IMO. I would love it if there were a full
featured Open Source mail server. Not that I am looking to save money -
I'd just like to be able to use a product that is driven by functionality
instead of the bean counters. FWIW, I didn't renew my IMail
service agreement that expired a month or two ago. I'm not sure what I'm
holding out for, but I don't want to feel like I'm being robbed by paying
Ipswitch to use their product. That said, I'm not using a version with a
vulnerability in it, but that shouldn't matter. If a vulnerability is
discovered in any version of a piece of software, the vendor should provide a
patch regardless of SA status. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Tyran
Ormond On 05:41 PM 10/23/2006 -0400, it would
appear that Mike N wrote: Now that there's been an SMTP exploit released
(yesterday) for the recently patched SMTP bug, you are running on borrowed time
until someone decides to try it on your server.
----- Original Message -----
From: Troy D. Hilton
Subject: [IMail
Forum] It is worth it to buy the SA? Weve been running
Imail 7.15 for a few years now and its been running very well. Well, its time
to renew my SA with Ipswitch but Im wondering is it worth
it?
In following this
list I see that the latest versions of Imail have been far from stellar, so Im
know I will not be upgrading to 2006.x anytime soon. I think Ive seen that 8.22
is pretty stable but is it worth the upgrade from a 7.15 thats old but stable,
to a 8.22? Is it worth it for me to spend the money for an SA for
Imail?
Opinions?
-- -- |
- RE: [IMail Forum] It is worth it to buy the S... Bruce Barnes
- RE: [IMail Forum] It is worth it to buy ... Jim Comerford
- Re: [IMail Forum] It is worth it to ... Tom Pepper
- RE: [IMail Forum] It is worth it... Christopher Checca
- Re: [IMail Forum] It is wort... Doug Traylor
- [IMail Forum] OT: It is... Christopher Checca
- Re: [IMail Forum] O... Darin Cox
- RE: [IMail Foru... Matrosity Hosting
- Re: [IMail Foru... Darin Cox
- RE: [IMail Foru... Jim F.
- Re: [IMail Foru... Darin Cox
- Re: [IMail Foru... Darrell \([EMAIL PROTECTED])
