I could have written the entire suggestion as three or four sentences - it just would have been somewhat ambiguous.Īctually it's not rocket science, and it doesn't even need to be as involved as your solution. I'm a software engineer and I know how important it is to completely communicate how a software feature should work. Don't mistake my lengthy, detailed description of exactly how the features should work as evidence that the features are complex. All I can do is make suggestions for improvements and inform them of bugs - and leave the rest up to them. Should the simple features we are discussing be something for which users pay additional? I don't know and I don't think that it's my place to tell the MailEnable team how to configure and price their product. The Catch-All feature is included and not an extra-cost item, despite the fact that most users probably don't enable it. Distribution lists are included in the base product and are not an extra-cost item. Many MailEnable users aren't interested in running a listserver, but that's not an extra-cost option. Phrased as a question, how does mailenable differentiate itself from the myriad other servers out there? What makes it a better choice than 602Pro LAN Suite, Avirt Mail Server, CommuniGate Pro, FTGate Pro, Gordano Messaging Suite, IMail Server, Internet Anywhere, Kerio Mail Server, MDaemon, MERCUR, MailEssentials, MailMax, MailSite, Merak Mail Server, Mercury Mail Transport System, Microsoft Exchange, Nu-Mail, QuickMail Pro Server, VOP modusMail, Visnetic MailFlow, Visnetic MailServer Pro, and inFusion? Part of making a successful mail server is including features not offered by other products. 20+ years of experience) but they would clearly take some time. I do know that the features I requested would not be overly complex to implement in software (I'm a professional software engineer w. What do you think the cost of such a feature should be since it is not offered by other products and would take time to develop.Īll of Mailenable took time to develop and they offer a free version and pay versions. It is extremely valuable and we have a need for it as well.ĭespite multiple people voicing a need for features such as I have described, you have attempted to portray this as some kind of weird, obscure feature that would only benefit me.ĭavid Payer wrote:OK, it is a good thing. Um wildcard processing is not an abstract idea that organizations do not find valuable. Searching the forum, I see lots of people have been asking for this feature. Yeah - ME needs to implement a way to block recipient addresses at the SMTP level. Please implement a way to create a "catchall - except". I've got exactly this problem, I've closed an account (because of the amount of spam I got), but there's no way I can close the account for real, then the catchall account on the same domain would get the spam.!! Then I suggest that you read the other replies in this thread: It is a method that may work, I just don't see anyone else asking for this and I am on several mail lists for mail administrators. As you say, there is a huge demand for such things. Maybe you could hire them to create a mod for you. They abandoned their pro product altogether after a year and went into the email consulting business. Unfortunately, they gave away a 3 user version of the product and found that they spent their entire time supporting the free version and they didn't make any money. THey had a wonderful product that was webmail only oriented. There was a product I bought a license to: PrivateMail that did exactly as you ask. Interesting that you approach things in this way. I bet Mail Enable would give you great advertising rates on their website. Possibly a custom MTA module you could develop and sell. You can then determine the real market for such an application. That would be the real cost of such an item. By requesting things which will assist you in your methodology will add to MY cost because features cost time to develop.Īgain, I encourage you to create a mail preprocessor that you can sell on the open market that will interface with Mail Enable. I have high expectations for MailEnable: I expect it to do a good job as a mail server and I expect it to be inexpensive. Why fight against changes that are relatively simple to make when they would help many people? If using a catchall means that the server accepts spam for every address a spammer dreams up, then ME has a problem. I'd like to see MailEnable be the most capable Windows mail server for those who wish to fight the spam problem. So you're saying that MailEnable should be a package for people with low expectations? I disagree.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |