Thomas, On 06-01-2005 17:36, you [TF] wrote in <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: TF> They spend money on their sysad, who has to make himself TF> knowlegable. The sysad who recommends TB will be smart enough to be TF> a member of this list. IMHO.
But isn't (one of) the point that if you run a company, you need to have someone you can legally "force" to fix a problem? I mean, a company cannot put any pressure on the members on this list, whereas they can to the company who has supplied the software in question if it comes with some sort of service agreement. I think that most companies want to make sure that their _very_ important tool (e-mail system) is backed up with some sort of promise that problems will be fixed quickly. This is not exactly the case with Ritlabs, is it? -- <greeting> Best regards </greeting> <author> Peter Fjelsten </author> <thebat version> 3.0.1.33 Pro </thebat version> <env.> ~18 POP3, 1 IMAP (MailMax 5.5) & 1 IMAP (Exchange 6.5), 150K msgs. </env.> <os> Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 </os> ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
