-----Original Message-----
From: Len Conrad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 5:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Fw: "cocky" support - IPSWITCH, PLEASE
READTHIS
> * IMail needs to block users from adding 50 aliases
agreed, Imail should defend itself better.
ditto for SMTP AUTH process not being able to kick itself back into action.
>* SQL7 Support, SQL2000 is almost out already. What is the hold-up?
agreed, mailsite & vopmail do better here.
>Every product under the sun supports SQL7
one of the top is CommuniGate Pro from www.stalker.com, but no SQL at
all, afaics.
I personally wouldn't consider it in the Top 10 if it doesn't have support
for SQL or Oracle. Personal opinion. We purchased IMail on the basis that
it DID support external databases so we wouldn't even touch CommuniGate if
it didn't have it as an option.
>* SMTP service constantly crashing on certain message files and
>hanging ALL SMTP traffic until that corrupt message file is removed.
agreed, Imail should defend itself better. one bad msg shouldn't
crater the entire server. At least have a msg parsing/cleaning tool
so we wouldn't have to clear it ourselves.
>told me to delete all 8,000 messages from today and yesterday out of the
>spool directory and that it should fix the problem.
vbg. Sound like MS tech support: reformat / re-install.
>* ADDUSER.EXE - Honestly, how hard is it to have ADDUSER.EXE add
>host admin privileges to a user? We're talking about adding a single
>character to the registry/database.
Agreed, but Ipswitch could make a point about security here. But I
don't know what their point really is. But they should make this
gun, and let us shoot ourselves.
Exactly. They can release both if it makes them feel better. Let
us shoot ourselves. It's just an excuse to not do it.
>* ETRN support working correctly. I've been through this once, but
>here it is again. Lets say you have 30 normal domains setup in IMail and
>10 domains setup for ETRN (NOT SETUP IN IMAIL, JUST THE HOSTS FILE AS IT'S
>SUPPOSED TO BE). Now, turn on "Relay for Local Hosts Only" and all
>the ETRN customers email bounces all over the place and never gets
>delivered.
Here I can't agree. They've made the relay options mutually
exclusive. ETRN's only security is the ip address since "ETRN
domain.com" is so spoofable, not Imail's fault. So to have ETRN for
an ip address (NT hots file), the relay option is exclusively "relay
for addresses", not, as you found out, "Local Hosts". You know that
relaying for local hosts users will get you blackholed, so simply don't use
it.
Our company CANNOT relay based on IP Addresses due to the type of
users we support so it narrows it down to "Relay for Local Users", "Relay
for Local Hosts" or "Relay for All". So you can't tell me that "Relay for
Local Hosts" is not better than "Relay for All". Now that we have that
established, we CANNOT use ETRN on the same IMail server as all their mail
will bounce. I do understand that it's technically not a "local host"
(although it could be considered such and it would only help customers)
although the accept.txt file should surely accept a domain name for ETRN
customers. What's completely silly about your argument is this: Why would
it reject messages because of the "Relay for Local Hosts only" if ETRN is
totally independant? It's processing some rules of ETRN but not others.
* Standardized Web Interface such as .ASP Files calling a DLL or
>ODBC connection to modify users/domains so modifications can tie in
>with other modules instead of the proprietory Web Messaging Interface.
And API is needed, but of course this increases their support (to
developers) costs, way above what it would cost them to develop it.
Not really, if it's written correctly they don't have to support
"alterations" to their ASP Code. Just as they don't support "alterations"
to their code now. It seems like development would go DOWN as they don't
have to maintain code for a web-server. It would also take care of your
problem with allowing the interface on a seperate or multiple seperate
machines.
>* Better Web-Templates - Our development department would be more
>than happy to design a nice set and give them to IPSwitch if that's
>what it takes.
Imail's templates are butt-ugly, but this is an artistic/taste
issue. 3rd party template providers are doing well, eg, the
reasonably priced and generally pleastn HKSI templates, plus various
freebies around. I'd much rather Ipswitch work on technical rather
than artistic issues which wouldn't please everybody anyway.
I add :
1) Web messaging server hostable on a machine separate from the SMTP
+ mailbox server, so web messaging http server wouldn't clog up
SMTP/POP3/IMAP traffic.
2) Imail as LDAP client to an external LDAP database.
3) getting greedy, external accounts database support for postgres + mysql.
Imail 7 should be out by year end, I wonder if their feature set is
already frozen?
That's my biggest complaint. IMail 7? What happened to fixing
IMail 5 and 6? I'm sick of waiting for new releases only to find out they
don't fix the main bugs we're complaining about.
-Mark McDonald
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Siteserver Network!
Voice: 800.610.9856, Ext. 231 - Fax: 888.333.2710
Len
http://BIND8NT.MEIway.com: ISC BIND 8.2.2 p5 installable binary for NT4
http://IMGate.MEIway.com: Build free, hi-perf, anti-spam mail gateways
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
