Is Anyone Home At PocoSystems?

[Eric]

Thanks Sandy for explaining that word. I already thought it would mean something like that.

No, my point is simply that PSI does not track bugs effectively and it does not fix many known bugs in its products.

That they don't track bugs effectively, that I can understand. As reported before by Slaven, they were looking into improving that tool or looking out for a replacement.

I only bought the whole unfortunate subject up in the first place in response to Eric's (again I will say it) polliannaish claim in the spite of PSI recent history that: "I'm sure most of them will be adressed during the next beta run."

I agree with you that I'm optimistic about it, as we already saw proof of their willingness to solve existing bugs and problems. Remember the way Draft has been changed.
Whether all bugs will be fixed, depends on whether that bug can be reproduced, same as priority, time and resources needed to fix that bug.

What I don't understand is your stance to always go back to the past. Maybe it's because your list isn't adressed.
I do give them more credit for what they're trying to achieve now.

Also with all the new products hitting the market, I'm sure they have their hands full with all support requests and future plans.

I also didn't say ALL bugs will get fixed, because that's unrealistic.
English isn't my first language, so I'm a bit restricted on how to respond to a question, what words I should use and so on.

Sometimes I do make mistakes in my choice of words and if every post is going to be analyzed, it makes it even more difficult for me to provide support to whoever is asking.

If you take 2 minutes to write something down, I'll need more then 5 minutes to express myself clearly. Sometimes it's even hard to find the right words or knowing how to write it down correctly.

Give it some slack Sandy.

[Sandy]

Phooey....

You ignore my main point which is PSI's willingness to declare a beta complete, and release the new version, when there continue to exist outstanding reported bugs that are fully reproducable and not unusually complex to fix.

I give up. Paint a rosy picture if you like. I was one of PSI's most ardent supporters and active defenders a few years ago (well before you came along, BTW). But they have lost their way IMO since those days.

[Eric]

Phooey....
You ignore my main point which is PSI's willingness to declare a beta complete, and release the new version, when there continue to exist outstanding reported bugs that are fully reproducable and not unusually complex to fix.

No, I don't ignore that point. Every company has to decide whether it's ready for release or not.

If there are still some minor bugs left, perhaps time or the complexity to fix that bug at that time plays a deciding factor. Also marketing does have a big say in this, which IMHO shouldn't be done.

Real ex.: a new version of a drive image program is released, because marketing decides time is of an essence. On release those that try that version experience first hand what a buggy version means. As a result development tries to fix it with new builds and finally they succeed, but the damage has already been done.

Since neither of those bugs are critical, I guess PSI decided to release it, which remains their decision at that point.

I give up. Paint a rosy picture if you like. I was one of PSI's most ardent supporters and active defenders a few years ago (well before you came along, BTW). But they have lost their way IMO since those days.

I'm not painting a rosy picture. Just my opinion about their development as I see it.

Of course it's not the little company anymore that you knew before, so it does undergo some changes, as all growing companies must go through.

Now up to more important matters, since these topics take a lot of time away from real support issues, as well as my work & home duties.

Each had his say, his belief in this matter, so better let it end now, because those discussions don't help much and paint a negative image around PSI. Let's see what the future brings.

[Tomas]

Pocosystems have already explained at length their reluctance to encourage people to be fowarding html mesages with possibly dodgy code embedded. Personlaly I agree with them fully.

Maybe OT but raised my eyebrow. I clearly remember forwarding quite a few html messages for inspection and it was no problem, though that might have been years ago. If they have changed their mind, I have no clue what's the logic behind that, if Pocomail is announced to be the SECURE alternative to Outlook. If it's secure, what's is the problem with dodgy html messages?

[J-Mac]

...Pocosystems have already explained at length their reluctance to encourage people to be fowarding html mesages with possibly dodgy code embedded. Personlaly I agree with them fully.
After using Pocomaila and Barca for several years in my personal and business dealings, I cannot imagine any serious minded user abandoning what is clearly the best email agent out their because of this minor and peripheral issue.

Garbage, I say.

Saoir, I have been involved in business dealings for longer than many Pocomail users have been on earth, and I am a "serious-minded user", and to imply that "real men don't do HTML email" is unrealistic, and indicative of someone who is NOT very deeply involved with present day "business dealings". I cannot think of one corporation that sends plain text messages. Not one. Please do let me kow what companies you deal with that refrain from using any and all HTML in their email correspondence. That is one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard in defense of Pocomail's refusal to adequately support HTML code.

Users who DO deal in real business must deal with HTML email messages from companies every hour of every day. Pocomail's inadequacy in this area is so old and behind the times that it's laughable!

Someone please tell me when the last time they saw any security threat in an HTML email message. And if possible try to document it by sending me a copy. You can also tell me about the men in black who are following you everywhere you go!

Personally I don't care how a message is composed. Plain text is fine for me. But if I want to work with clients - and I am talking about real world, Fortune 500 companies - I must have the ability to properly handle HTML messages. Period. And by "handle", I mean receive them in a completely readable format, and be able to forward and/or reply to them without having the message trashed and distorted to the point of being totally incomprehensible.

As for Pocomail saving all of us poor, stupid, non-secure users from the evil HTML threats that they apparently think are running rampant over cyberspace, again, that is a ridiculous and completely ineffective stance.

First, it is not Pocomail's job to protect users who do not have even the most rudimentary security on their PC's - and that is all it takes to defeat any threat that can be sent via HTML bugs. Anyone running even not-so-great AV and AS programs are easily protected from HTML threats.

Second, I buy and use Pocomail for its messaging features, not to make me feel more secure - that is what the professional PC security applications are doing. If you really think Pocomail is protecting you from anything at all, you are less-informed than I thought.

As always, just my never-so-humble opinion....

[J-Mac]

Just thought I would add that even though Eric is at times a bit overprotective of PSI, he helps users more than anyone in this forum.

Since PSI does not grace us here in the forums with their presence, Eric provides assistance above and beyond what should be expected from an unpaid, completely voluntary moderator position.

So I can overlook the somewhat defensive posture with regard to PSI and greatly appreciate the service that Eric provides here.

It can't be easy, considering the total lack of support from PSI, and the unbelievable rudeness of we users, present company (meaning ME) included.

Thanks Eric!

[Andreas]

I fully agree to J-Mac. PocoMail is a great program, but it's time to improve its HTML capabilities now.

[imtrobin]

I agree that HTML mail is important. Sometimes I need to forward newsletter or mail (from trusted sites), and I can't with Pocomail. Forwarding as attachment doesn't work because the mail server blocks eml files for security.

In name of security, Poco does custom HTML rendering but it is obviously a lot of work to get working correctly. DreamMail has almost same secure feature with minimal work, open the mail in default text mode, if user chooses, render in using IE engine.

http://www.dreammail.org/gb/

[neo]

I do agree with that, and I also need to know by someone from Poco staff if this is going to be implemented in the near future or not, I just want to stop using two mail programs when I should be using just one.

[Eric]

You're welcome J-Mac.

It can't be easy, considering the total lack of support from PSI, and the unbelievable rudeness of we users, present company (meaning ME) included.

It simply isn't easy, although the support and appreciation from others, as well as PSI do help a lot.
Also it's not always rude, I do have fun days here too.

[pairofhearts]

..........appears to me that Eric is going above and beyond........

[saoir]

Garbage, I say.

Well I find that reponse quite offensive not to mention naive.

[Eric]

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but please don't start a flaming war.
Keep it civilized, otherwise I'll be forced to lock this informative topic.

Thanks in advance.

p.s.: this warning is not directed to anyone in particular, so don't take it personal.