FYI, I am sending this to the LIst and Directly to Jason.
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 16:47 +0100, Jason Meers wrote:
> Why is this list so abusive?
It actually depends on what you term abusive. To me the reason it is far
different from the "Commercial Support World". These Commercial support
stuff is in fact *PAID* FOR and Damn Well Better Be Non-Abusive.
Especially since you have *PAID* for the product and PAID for commercial
support. Typically you get a whitewash and some pretty flowers from the
support teams for Commercial SMTP/MTA products. Yes, nothing says
welcome to paying (hyarge amounts of money, in some cases) for stuff you
don't know how to fix yourself. Wow, and you don't even get the benefit
of properly documented products to begin with.
Think about this, if you "commercial" product was as well documented,
would you infact buy support at the costs associated with that? I know I
would not (and don't) because I do have of documentation.
Try this visualization a moment:
Microsoft Exchange, a "well documented" system... many
undocumented features. Many features that are critical to well
running system. You pay $OMFG_SUPPORT fees, either yearly or per
incident. Per incident is ay a minimum of $150. Not to mention
Costs for Said Software to Begin with, which by my calulation is
$50+ per seat.
Okay, you have a unique problem, you want to reduce the allowed
"recipients to" at your post-office beyond what the RFCs state
is proper. But you find using the interfaces you have been
given, it is not able to happen. You call support, the
immiediately "get on this". Finding the problem is ot really a
problem as, more of a preference to do something "wrong"... they
tell you it is a feature enhancement, but since it is "wrong",
you won't ever get it.
So, let me say you have a 20K seat exchange system (yeah, it is
stretching there), $750K just for the seat licenses(based on
MLP/OLP scaling) (plus all of the server licenses and hardware
costs, plus the "Windows" server licenses)... plus you yearly
costs of Software Maintenance of ~ $200K/year, not to mention
the 10 odd Windows admins you'll have to hire and the 4 or so
Exchange ONLY admins you'll have to hire just to support this
system... Just for Bascia Mail-handling (not to mention the
Outlook support for Helpdesk and the Scheduling users will
discover)
Reflecting on The Exim-Solution for basic mail services, for
those 20K users. 1/4 The hardware would support 10 times the
users(as I see this ratio myslef), Plus I use Courier-{POP,IMAP,
and mailfilter} for actual client store (mail is on server,
copies on client for offline use) You can literally integrate
any kind of non-rfc compliant restrictions or features you
want. Add Virus-scanning, Attachments scanning, greylisting,
Whitelisting, blacklist... redlisting, bluelisting... even
green-eggs-and-ham-listing. Server-side mail sorting, Spam
identification and sorting, DCC stuff, Pyzor, Razor, SPF, PMS.
All of this with Exim. At no cost (or very little in donation
form) for "free stuff" or for pay with commercial equivalents.
Now, remembering what I just previously types, please read my responses
to you.
> <rant>
> People post to this list because they need help and advice.
> They are not lazy or selfish, just lost.
True, most people are lost when they first some here. I was. And I asked
many, many, manhy questions that *ARE* in-fact answer in the FAQ or the
spec.txt. Or are aided in explanation by the O[Rielly (ancient) Exim
book, or by the More recent book Philip Wrote about Exim 4, though the
second book was written and publidh AFTER I really was using Exim.
So a big kudos for them coming here in any case.
> A swift "RTFM" slap across the face has become almost the standard reply
> to anyone who knows less than you, this is exim-users not exim-arrogance
> or exim-immortals.
Please refer to my previous Typings here. This is NOT a commercially
paid/supported for forum. Provided mostly by Volunteers and the Exim
Core teams ( Philip, Tony...etc) and Even the Debian Exim4 Maintainers
add to the list here. People like me, that have a great respect for the
authors of Exim for, making exim's flexing powers (()FLEX()) very
TIMTOWTDI capable. Exim-Users, given enough time to get pointed in the
right direction with "RT(TFP_)M on this page/location" is a VERY
powerful way to help people learn to find things for themselves.
Eventually the *DO* indeed become EXIM-Immortals with Plenty of
EXIM-Arrogance. Sort of why Debian Users/Admins are sometimes referred
to as Dweebian or Snobbians. Once you drink, swish and swallow the
red-Kool-Aid there is no going back.
If these people don't understand that GREAT documentation (as what Exim
has) is far from "Commercial" Quality documnetation. Most (99%) of
answers can be gleaned from Exim's Docs (Kudos to Phillip on that high
standard), which is why most people get the RTFM answer. Usually with
near exact locations of where in those FMs.
> Is it so hard to believe that someone can *try* to understand Exim and
> *try* to understand the specs and still need help.
No. It is not hard to believe, mainly because there SO MUCH there. I
only know the parts I use really well. Beyond that I RTFM. Or make it up
as I go and then discovre someone else has done a similar.
> The documentation for Exim is fantastic, absolutely NO DOUBT about that,
> but how many of you can take in every part of the 452 page specification
> and understand every part of it.
If I only had to maintain an MTA, I could easily recite it.
> If Exim was a such a "no-brainer" this list wouldn't exist and nobody
> would need to be subscribed.
Exim4 should work out of the box, period. The build process and example
confs are good enough to run a small host MTA without much screwing
around.
> How many of you who have previously posted an RTFM reply have NEVER
> asked the list for help or advice on a topic that was covered by the
> manual? Please stand up and make yourself known, it's easy for us to check.
I have posted RTFM questions. Though I didn't know it at the time, and
took offense to them as well. That is until I realised I was getting the
ANSWERS I realy did need. (except now that I use, what is termed as
Debian's Black magic, most of my questions are asked on the Debian Exim
list)
> Before any of you tell me RTFM means "fine" manual check the archives it
> is typed out in full in some of the 200+ threads that contain the phrase
> *at least once* in the last 3-4 years.
Wow, ONLY once. I'da thought many more times.
> I am having to defend my right to use open source software at work
> because a well known worldwide consultancy has highlighted to my
> management that the "support" and "community" I am so fond of are
> sometimes more abusive than supportive (this list was mentioned). Hence
> using open source presents too much of a risk to the business and should
> be replaced ASAP.
This is just plain stupid, the "worldwide" conslutancy has a proprietary
solution they'd like you to use. Why then are they supporting Debian in
certain ways, Ubuntu in other ways, SuSE is additional ways, Actuall
paying for the Gentoo Kernel package maintainer... and directly
employing a certain couple of other Kernel Developers.
> This attitude is self-harming.
Well, is it maybe because the same questions get asked... OVER and OVER
and OVER. With the same answer being a finely point RTM response?
> Exim is a fantastic product and the level of knowledge you guys hold on
> it is second to none, but we are all responsible adults, we don't have
> to humiliate people who are not as knowledgeable as us.
It is NOT humiliation, it is a matter of factly way of handling
re-dundant information, or IOW, Frequently Asked Questions.
> If someone doesn't know what it is they are looking for, how do they
> know which part of the manual to read without asking the list?
Which they then get. In a Matter ofact, style that sometimes offends
many people. But, since Vounteers are typically answer your question for
FREE, WTF would you expect, especially when MANY coming here the first
time use a condescending tone in the request/question/threat in the
first place.
> If someone asks a stupid question you can choose to:
> A) Answer it
> B) Ignore it
> You don't *have* to be abusive
Doing A) with a terse but informative response IS NOT being abusive. It
is being effective and effcient. I used to think it was offensive until
I really understood, they WERE INDEED fixing my problems.
> If your child had been humiliated at school for asking a teacher a
> question that had already been covered in a text book you wouldn't
> accept it, why here?
No, I wouldn't tolerate it. But if the teacher said something terse and
informative, I really can't argue that being bad. There is too much
prevalent "I WANT THE ANSWER NOW, don't explain it to me or show where
to look for it! I JUST WANT THE ANSWER." My kids hate me for giving them
all the info they need to figure out the problem, where as the just want
me to DO the work for them.
If I just gave you the answer and you come back telling me it didn't
work, then what good was it in the first place. Now if I tell you to
RTFM at chapter 12, page 11, paragraph 2 and the surrounding text, that
will answer your question... How is that ABUSIVE? Terse and a bit
ABRASIVE, but not abusive.
> </rant>
Now, please tak in the whole picture of my response to you BEFORE reply
back. Also please help those being the power that be my whole story and
explanation
> Jason Meers
> (someone who has read the book and the spec several times and still
> needs help from time to time)
I read things all the time. Especially things in Exim I do "once in a
while", I still ask questions. Marc Haber and Andreas (cu and" Okay, I
said it here." reas) Metzler answer most of my questions now.
--
greg, greg@???
The technology that is
Stronger, better, faster: Linux
