Path: visi.com!winternet.com!Fred!joelr
From: joelr@winternet.com (Joel Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: winternet.general,mn.general,winternet.gripes
Subject: The Winternet Situation
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 11:34:14
Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc
Lines: 64
Distribution: local
Message-ID: <joelr.3417.000B9274@winternet.com>
References: <4roifh$ns9@blackice.winternet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-67-83.dialup.winternet.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
Xref: visi.com winternet.general:548 mn.general:27963 winternet.gripes:710

Firstly:  
>
>I GOT THE WACK ASS SHIT THAT BREAKS WINTERNET'S NECK!
>WOO HAH!  I GOT MIKE HORWATH IN CHECK!  YAW YAW YAW!

I think we can assume that this message is not really from any of the owners 
of Winternet, Mike Horwath included. 

I don't know Mike well, and have always dealt with him via email, with the 
exception of a couple of phone calls.  I've always been impressed with his 
abilities, despite our limited contact, and with his commitment to customer 
service.  As much as I can say it for somebody I don't really know, I like the 
guy.  I'm particularly and personally grateful for his help and calmness 
during a difficult period where he was receiving harrassing email from my 
youngest brother, and where he -- rather than shooting off threats in any 
direction -- simply asked me to present my side of the situation, which was 
resolved in my favor.   (He basically told my . . . differently-clued brother 
to go away and not bother him anymore.)

I think that was the right tack to take then, and now.   

Me, I want to know what's going on, and what is likely to go on.  

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the situation, if Winternet is not going 
to be a reliable ISP, I simply *must* find another one, and will, and am open 
to suggestions as to good local ISPs.

On the other hand, I would very much like to hear, in detail, both sides of 
the situation from both Mike and his staff -- directly, publicly (although I'd 
certainly be happy to listen to anything privately) and his two (former? 
present?) partners and their associates and staff, and I'll certainly be 
willing (assuming that the system is running sufficiently well during that 
time to obviate having to switch to another ISP) to give both sides time to 
present their side of the story before I make any decision about what I'm 
going to do.

Since this was Mike's policy, I can't imagine that he'd find that 
objectionable.   (If so, Mike, you've got my email address; let me know.)

Rumors fly, and things get exaggerated and misunderstood.  I recently received 
an email from somebody friendly to one of the parties involved that *seemed* 
to suggest that that party had performed a specific, despicable act.  When I 
asked him if that was indeed what he meant, he replied, clearly surprised that 
I had taken it that way, that no, he meant to imply something entirely 
different, and not despicable, and upon rereading his email, it was clear that 
he'd been unclear, and that I'd misunderstood. 

(You'll understand that I'm not going to name the party, or the act; I'm not 
about to spread a 'rumor' that the source has told me is untrue.  I'll leave 
that to retired FBI agents . . . .)

So.  I can't -- and don't -- speak for anybody else, but I can reduce my 
position to this:

1.  Winternet must be a stable ISP, or I have to find another one.

2.   I'd like all parties involved to state their side of the case, ideally 
publicly. 

3.  It is not a hostile or disloyal or unfriendly act toward any of the 
parties involved to wait a decent interval for them to state their case before 
acting.  



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: visi.com!news4.mr.net!mr.net!news.clark.net!world1.bawave.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-11.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-3.sprintlink.net!news-penn.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!wcnews01.ops.aol.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!Fred!joelr
From: joelr@winternet.com (Joel Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: winternet.general,mn.general,winternet.gripes
Subject: Re: The Winternet Situation
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 14:33:53
Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc
Lines: 60
Distribution: local
Message-ID: <joelr.3423.000E9104@winternet.com>
References: <4roifh$ns9@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3417.000B9274@winternet.com> <4rotki$8jg@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3422.000DA404@winternet.com> <4rp1f3$am6@blackice.winternet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-67-23.dialup.winternet.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
Xref: visi.com winternet.general:406 mn.general:27625 winternet.gripes:681

In article <4rp1f3$am6@blackice.winternet.com> kbremer@winternet.com (Kevin Bremer) writes:
>From: kbremer@winternet.com (Kevin Bremer)
>Subject: Re: The Winternet Situation
>Date: 7 Jul 1996 18:59:47 GMT

>Joel Rosenberg (joelr@winternet.com) Wrote:
>> I have to agree on both.  I'd rather not set a specific deadline, myself, 
>> because I don't think that would help anybody.  
>> 
>> But, yes, there needs to be some public explanations, and they need to be made 
>> sooner than later.

>        I'd say give it a week.  In 5 business days, a lot can happen.  
>We should all know for sure what will be happening by then.

That sounds about right.

Here's a prediction, based entirely on no evidence or information whatsoever:

Tomorrow, everybody's going to huddle up with their lawyer or lawyers.  (I 
presume that the folks now running Winternet already did so, prior to taking 
over; I bet they do it again, on Monday.)  The lawyers will tell their clients 
to keep their mouths shut until the matter's resolved.   The folks now running 
Winternet are likely to make some statement as to that effect; so is Mike.

The lawyers will make contact with each other, and schedule a prompt 
meeting.  Whatever the legalities are -- and I make no pretensions to know; 
I'm  not a lawyer -- it's almost certain to be better for all parties (except 
maybe the lawyers . . . but nevermind that) for the matter to be resolved 
quickly.  

I can't imagine that Mike and his ex-partners-to-be will wish to work with 
each other again, or that Mike won't want to be running an ISP.  

Which sounds to me like a situation where: 

a) somebody's got to buy somebody else out, and 

b) the actual value of Winternet will, at least in the short to medium run, 
decline as time goes by without a resolution, which isn't in the interests of 
anybody concerned.  

Even assuming that Mike's getting bought out -- and as I say, that's just an 
assumption -- if he wants to start up another ISP, as I assume he would, the 
more value his share of Winternet has, the more money his ex-partners-to-be 
have to pay to buy him out, and particularly if he feels (as I bet he does) 
that they can't keep up the level of service, he's better off starting up his 
competing company with as much capital available from the buyout as possible, 
and then let nature take its course.  

Contariwise, if Mike is going to buy them out, ditto, and even more so -- the 
value of Winternet (whatever it is; I don't have the vaguest idea) comes from 
the cash flow from the customer base, and from its reputation for good 
service, as well as the capital equipment. 

So:  my guess -- and it's just a guess -- is that it will be in everybody's 
interests for this to be resolved in just a few days, and that's what the 
lawyers are going to tell their clients and work on.  

But I've been wrong before.  Often...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: visi.com!news4.mr.net!mr.net!news.mr.net!news
From: jon@cbsmsp.msphub.com (Jon Johnston)
Newsgroups: winternet.general,mn.general,winternet.gripes
Subject: Re: The Winternet Situation
Date: 8 Jul 1996 22:08:51 GMT
Organization: Creative Business Solutions
Lines: 31
Distribution: local
Message-ID: <4rs0tj$cqm@news.mr.net>
References: <4roifh$ns9@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3417.000B9274@winternet.com> <4rotki$8jg@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3422.000DA404@winternet.com> <4rp1f3$am6@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3423.000E9104@winternet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.199.197.60
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.5
Xref: visi.com winternet.general:425 mn.general:27676 winternet.gripes:683

In article <joelr.3423.000E9104@winternet.com>, joelr@winternet.com says...
>
>In article <4rp1f3$am6@blackice.winternet.com> kbremer@winternet.com (Kevin 
Bremer) writes:
>>From: kbremer@winternet.com (Kevin Bremer)
>>Subject: Re: The Winternet Situation
>>Date: 7 Jul 1996 18:59:47 GMT
[snip gobs o' stuff]

>
>So:  my guess -- and it's just a guess -- is that it will be in everybody's 
>interests for this to be resolved in just a few days, and that's what the 
>lawyers are going to tell their clients and work on.  
>
>But I've been wrong before.  Often...

I've never ever heard of lawyers recommending that something be solved 
quickly. It may be in Winternet's interest, Winternet's customers' interest, 
and Mike's internet, but its definitely not in the lawyer's interest. 

Cynical, me? <G> 

-- 
Jon Johnston
Creative Business Solutions
Messaging Consultants
Minneapolis, MN USA 
612-544-1108
jon@cbsmsp.msphub.com
http://www.msphub.com


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: visi.com!winternet.com!news
From: sjwalter@winternet.com (Scott J. Walter)
Newsgroups: winternet.general,mn.general,winternet.gripes
Subject: Re: The Winternet Situation
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 17:51:38 GMT
Organization: Walter Enterprises
Lines: 31
Distribution: local
Message-ID: <4rotki$8jg@blackice.winternet.com>
References: <4roifh$ns9@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3417.000B9274@winternet.com>
Reply-To: sjwalter@winternet.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-66-29.dialup.winternet.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: visi.com winternet.general:562 mn.general:27966 winternet.gripes:711

joelr@winternet.com (Joel Rosenberg) wrote:

>So.  I can't -- and don't -- speak for anybody else, but I can reduce my 
>position to this:

>1.  Winternet must be a stable ISP, or I have to find another one.

>2.   I'd like all parties involved to state their side of the case, ideally 
>publicly. 

>3.  It is not a hostile or disloyal or unfriendly act toward any of the 
>parties involved to wait a decent interval for them to state their case before 
>acting.  

Thank you, Joel ... that's probably one of the best replies I've heard
yet ... I _will_ make one caveat to it, however:

I can't afford for the 'decent interval' to extend beyond a relatively
short period of time.  I am (like many others are) still waiting to
here from the current Winternet management ...

... and their silence is a triffle unsettling.


-"Scotty"
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Scott J. Walter              http://www.winternet.com/~sjwalter/ 
 C/C++, Java/Script, Web Design, MSWindows, Multimedia ... & more
------------------------------------------------------------------
 "It's not a bug ... it's not a feature ... it's an ENHANCEMENT!"


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: visi.com!winternet.com!Fred!joelr
From: joelr@winternet.com (Joel Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: winternet.general,mn.general,winternet.gripes
Subject: Re: The Winternet Situation
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 13:38:21
Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc
Lines: 35
Distribution: local
Message-ID: <joelr.3422.000DA404@winternet.com>
References: <4roifh$ns9@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3417.000B9274@winternet.com> <4rotki$8jg@blackice.winternet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-67-83.dialup.winternet.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]
Xref: visi.com winternet.general:567 mn.general:27967 winternet.gripes:712

In article <4rotki$8jg@blackice.winternet.com> sjwalter@winternet.com (Scott J. Walter) writes:
>From: sjwalter@winternet.com (Scott J. Walter)
>Subject: Re: The Winternet Situation
>Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 17:51:38 GMT

>joelr@winternet.com (Joel Rosenberg) wrote:

>>So.  I can't -- and don't -- speak for anybody else, but I can reduce my 
>>position to this:

>>1.  Winternet must be a stable ISP, or I have to find another one.

>>2.   I'd like all parties involved to state their side of the case, ideally 
>>publicly. 

>>3.  It is not a hostile or disloyal or unfriendly act toward any of the 
>>parties involved to wait a decent interval for them to state their case before 
>>acting.  

>Thank you, Joel ... that's probably one of the best replies I've heard
>yet ... I _will_ make one caveat to it, however:

>I can't afford for the 'decent interval' to extend beyond a relatively
>short period of time.  I am (like many others are) still waiting to
>here from the current Winternet management ...

>... and their silence is a triffle unsettling.

I have to agree on both.  I'd rather not set a specific deadline, myself, 
because I don't think that would help anybody.  

But, yes, there needs to be some public explanations, and they need to be made 
sooner than later.



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: visi.com!winternet.com!not-for-mail
From: kbremer@winternet.com (Kevin Bremer)
Newsgroups: winternet.general,mn.general,winternet.gripes
Subject: Re: The Winternet Situation
Followup-To: winternet.general,mn.general,winternet.gripes
Date: 7 Jul 1996 18:59:47 GMT
Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc
Lines: 13
Distribution: local
Message-ID: <4rp1f3$am6@blackice.winternet.com>
References: <4roifh$ns9@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3417.000B9274@winternet.com> <4rotki$8jg@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3422.000DA404@winternet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tundra.winternet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
Xref: visi.com winternet.general:568 mn.general:27968 winternet.gripes:713

Joel Rosenberg (joelr@winternet.com) Wrote:
> I have to agree on both.  I'd rather not set a specific deadline, myself, 
> because I don't think that would help anybody.  
> 
> But, yes, there needs to be some public explanations, and they need to be made 
> sooner than later.

        I'd say give it a week.  In 5 business days, a lot can happen.  
We should all know for sure what will be happening by then.

-- 
Kevin Bremer (kbremer@winternet.com) Minneapolis, Minnesota (USA)
ftp://ftp.winternet.com/users/kbremer  http://www.winternet.com/~kbremer/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: visi.com!winternet.com!news
From: sjwalter@winternet.com (Scott J. Walter)
Newsgroups: winternet.general,mn.general,winternet.gripes
Subject: Re: The Winternet Situation
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 1996 18:02:05 GMT
Organization: Walter Enterprises
Lines: 15
Distribution: local
Message-ID: <4rrike$mq0@blackice.winternet.com>
References: <4roifh$ns9@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3417.000B9274@winternet.com> <4rotki$8jg@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3422.000DA404@winternet.com> <4rp1f3$am6@blackice.winternet.com>
Reply-To: sjwalter@winternet.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-66-105.dialup.winternet.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: visi.com winternet.general:667 mn.general:27999 winternet.gripes:723

kbremer@winternet.com (Kevin Bremer) wrote:

>       I'd say give it a week.  In 5 business days, a lot can happen.  
>We should all know for sure what will be happening by then.

That sounds reasonable to me.


-"Scotty"
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Scott J. Walter              http://www.winternet.com/~sjwalter/ 
 C/C++, Java/Script, Web Design, MSWindows, Multimedia ... & more
------------------------------------------------------------------
 "It's not a bug ... it's not a feature ... it's an ENHANCEMENT!"


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: visi.com!winternet.com!grante
From: grante@winternet.com (Grant Edwards)
Newsgroups: winternet.general,mn.general,winternet.gripes
Subject: Re: The Winternet Situation
Followup-To: winternet.general,mn.general,winternet.gripes
Date: 10 Jul 1996 03:36:57 GMT
Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc
Lines: 55
Distribution: local
Message-ID: <4rv8gp$2mr@blackice.winternet.com>
References: <4roifh$ns9@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3417.000B9274@winternet.com> <4rotki$8jg@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3422.000DA404@winternet.com> <4rp1f3$am6@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3423.000E9104@winternet.com> <4rs0tj$cqm@news.mr.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: parka.winternet.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: visi.com winternet.general:781 mn.general:28038 winternet.gripes:751

Jon Johnston (jon@cbsmsp.msphub.com) wrote:

: >So:  my guess -- and it's just a guess -- is that it will be in everybody's 
: >interests for this to be resolved in just a few days, and that's what the 
: >lawyers are going to tell their clients and work on.  
: >
: >But I've been wrong before.  Often...

: I've never ever heard of lawyers recommending that something be solved 
: quickly. It may be in Winternet's interest, Winternet's customers' interest, 
: and Mike's internet, but its definitely not in the lawyer's interest. 

Somebody better come up with an explanation soon. Since I'm a
design engineer by trade, I generally scoff at marketeer talk,
but somebody ought to explain to the new junta about "product
differentiation".

Mike and the rest of the crew were what differentiated your
product from everybody else's.  Now they're gone.  Now you're
just a two more guys with a shit-load of modems, phone lines,
and miscellaneous geek toys.

If I don't hear a satisfactory explanation of what's going on
by the end of the week I'm leaving.  I've paid for service
through spring '97, and the honorable thing for the new
management to do would be to offer me a refund on the remainder
of the year, but I don't really care.

   Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
   Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
   Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing.
   'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands
   But he that filches from me my good name
   Robs me of that which not enriches him
   And makes me poor indeed.

Iago may have been an SOB but some of his words still ring
true.  I suspect the new management has robbed themselves, and
I am unsure that I want my good name (such as it is) separated
from theirs by nothing more than an at sign.

One reason I hesitate in leaving is because Mike (though locked
out) is still president and part owner, AFAICT.  A mass exodus
might harm him financially, which probably isn't what we want
to do.

Sheesh.  I stop reading a couple of these newsgroups for a
while and all hell breaks loose.

--
Grant Edwards

grante@wXXXXXXXX.com
grante@rosemount.com
edwards@grad.cs.umn.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: visi.com!news4.mr.net!mr.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!news-lond.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!flagship.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!wcnews01.ops.aol.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!news
From: Geri Sullivan <gfs@toad-hall.com>
Newsgroups: winternet.general,mn.general,winternet.gripes
Subject: Re: The Winternet Situation
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 17:27:24 -0600
Organization: SMOTHRA
Lines: 26
Distribution: local
Message-ID: <31E58DDC.35EA@toad-hall.com>
References: <4roifh$ns9@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3417.000B9274@winternet.com> <4rotki$8jg@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3422.000DA404@winternet.com> <4rp1f3$am6@blackice.winternet.com> <4rrike$mq0@blackice.winternet.com>
Reply-To: gfs@toad-hall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7mpls3.winternet.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Xref: visi.com winternet.general:852 mn.general:28064 winternet.gripes:769

Scott J. Walter wrote:
> 
> kbremer@winternet.com (Kevin Bremer) wrote:
> 
> >       I'd say give it a week.  In 5 business days, a lot can happen.
> >We should all know for sure what will be happening by then.
> 
> That sounds reasonable to me.

It sounded reasonable to me, too. So here we are, on the 4th 
business day of the week. After several days of flakey, intermittent 
service mail is dead in the water. If other postings about the 
situation are correct, it's so broken that my mail and your mail is 
disappearing off the face of the planet without notification.

So much for being reasonable. It's beyond reasonable when they're 
taking the rope to hang themselves and hanging us, too.

I am *very* curious to see how the "new" Winternet both *fixes* and 
*makes up for* the real problems currently being experienced by its 
user base. I hope they do it with truthfulness, style, and grace.

================ Geri Sullivan <gfs@toad-hall.com> ================
Curly locks! Curly locks! Wilt thou be mine? Thou shalt not wash 
dishes Nor yet feed the swine. But sit on a cushion, And sew a 
fine seam, And feed upon strawberries, Sugar and cream.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: visi.com!winternet.com!news
From: sjwalter@winternet.com (Scott J. Walter)
Newsgroups: winternet.general,mn.general,winternet.gripes
Subject: Re: The Winternet Situation
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:31:43 GMT
Organization: Walter Enterprises
Lines: 45
Distribution: local
Message-ID: <31e58d02.89283639@news.winternet.com>
References: <4roifh$ns9@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3417.000B9274@winternet.com> <4rotki$8jg@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3422.000DA404@winternet.com> <4rp1f3$am6@blackice.winternet.com> <4rrike$mq0@blackice.winternet.com> <31E58DDC.35EA@toad-hall.com>
Reply-To: sjwalter@winternet.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-66-103.dialup.winternet.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
Xref: visi.com winternet.general:929 mn.general:28127 winternet.gripes:787

Geri Sullivan <gfs@toad-hall.com> wrote:

>So much for being reasonable. It's beyond reasonable when they're 
>taking the rope to hang themselves and hanging us, too.

::sigh:: I know.  

I was just trying to maintain an open mind and positive outlook.  I
don't relish the tought of having to relocate everything (rerouting,
notification, etc. ... praying you don't forget someone important ...
like a client ;)

>I am *very* curious to see how the "new" Winternet both *fixes* and 
>*makes up for* the real problems currently being experienced by its 
>user base. I hope they do it with truthfulness, style, and grace.

Agreed.  Perhaps ::thinks a bit:: free unlimited ISDN service for a
year to each Winterneter who chooses to stay? ;)

True ... it would cost a bundle ... but so would losing a chunk of
your clientbase.

I _will_ say this much:  at _least_ _something's_ starting to be
posted by the admins in .announce (just caught TomKat's post on the
mail problems).  It may take a few hours, but someone's saying
something ... not much ... but something.

On the other hand, the post didn't make me feel too comfortable.
Granted, sendmail isn't a "simple" package ... but the "we're in
contact with people who are very knowledgeable with sendmail" sounds
like too much like "we've asked an external for help".  I've nothing
against outside consultants ... but it's almost like they don't know
what they're doing ... and that makes me a little nervous.

(I know, I know ... upset when nothing is said, upset when something
is said ...)

::sigh::

-"Scotty"
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Scott J. Walter              http://www.winternet.com/~sjwalter/ 
 C/C++, Java/Script, Web Design, MSWindows, Multimedia ... & more
------------------------------------------------------------------
 "It's not a bug ... it's not a feature ... it's an ENHANCEMENT!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: visi.com!winternet.com!Matt
From: Matt@MondoInfo.com (Matthew Dixon Cowles)
Newsgroups: winternet.general,mn.general,winternet.gripes
Subject: Re: The Winternet Situation
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 20:38:33 -0500
Organization: Mondo Info
Lines: 21
Distribution: local
Message-ID: <Matt-1107962038330001@news.winternet.com>
References: <4roifh$ns9@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3417.000B9274@winternet.com> <4rotki$8jg@blackice.winternet.com> <joelr.3422.000DA404@winternet.com> <4rp1f3$am6@blackice.winternet.com> <4rrike$mq0@blackice.winternet.com> <31E58DDC.35EA@toad-hall.com> <31e58d02.89283639@news.winternet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mdcowles.winternet.com
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher
Xref: visi.com winternet.general:945 mn.general:28133 winternet.gripes:793

In article <31e58d02.89283639@news.winternet.com>, sjwalter@winternet.com wrote:

[snip]

>On the other hand, the post didn't make me feel too comfortable.
>Granted, sendmail isn't a "simple" package ... but the "we're in
>contact with people who are very knowledgeable with sendmail" sounds
>like too much like "we've asked an external for help".  I've nothing
>against outside consultants ... but it's almost like they don't know
>what they're doing ... and that makes me a little nervous.

[snip]

I agree. sendmail is distinctly non-trivial. Indeed, "nightmarish pile of
rubbish" is probably actually a better way of describing it. But it is a
sysadmin's job to know how to make it work. If they have to go outside for
sendmail help (and it seems that they do) they should look for a different
line of work.

Regards,
Matt