rex!engr.uky.edu!morgan (Wes Morgan) writes:
> >That's your problem, not mine. I could care less what the reasons are that
> >or someone in the AOL organization didn't feel it necessary to reply to my
> >You say you're the person in the liaison role, yet you also say that complai
> >about users go someplace else. Which is it?
> Hold on; let's back off for just a second. Are you suggesting that one
> person should personally view every single piece of administrative email
> coming into AOL from the outside world? Let's be realistic; I read over
> 2000 wpm and type over 100 wpm, and I *still* wouldn't be able to handle
> that load on top of my normal duties.
I'm not suggesting that a single person should handle administrative email,
this gentleman from AOL did. He tried to dismiss my gripes with the system by
saying that he had never seen my e-mail cross his console. Yes, indeed, let's
be realistic: the situation here is that AOL is unresponsive, and ducking the
issue by playing the "it must be someone else's job" game doesn't cut it.
> Remember, folks, that almost *every* person who handles root/postmaster
> email has other things to do as well. Is there anyone among us who can
> honestly say that other responsibilities have *never* preempted that
> list-owner mailbox for days at a time?
And, if it persists, many list-owners and system administrators would bar that
sight from a list until the site became responsive. IMO, that's where AOL is
headed if their poor attitude continues. This gentleman from AOL who is on
this list may be quite a competent person, but if he's forwarding e-mail
concerning users to someone else and that e-mail doesn't get answered, then AOL
is still unresponsive.
> >My only impression of your service as liaison is that you didn't react until
> >one of your customers suggested you react.
> For the record, I will state that I have received a prompt, courteous reply
> from AOL staff (including David) to *every* complaint of comment I have sent
> since David took over as liason. (In this environment, I define 'prompt' as
> 48 hours) Yes, there were some communication lapses prior to his watch, but
> that is, after all, the past.
No, it's not the past. It's the present. Not to mention the 80+ bounce
messages I got yesterday (about evenly divided between three "thirty-day
wonders" and two full mailbox users). That's the reality of allowing aol.com
users to sign on my lists.
> >It's more than understandably irritating. If there are more folks out there
> >who are running into the same problems as I am, more and more of the Interne
> >is going to become closed off to AOL users. That's going to end up one day
> >a story in the Wall Street Journal if you folks don't take some sort of
> >pro-active attitude to work on the problem.
> I've already seen improvement. They're dealing with spammers, abusers and
> Nasty Evil Users right and left; I would understand if one of my complaints
> fell through the cracks.
How are they dealing with these? I received a junk mail message about a diet
program or some such from an AOL user the other that was intended for my
mailing list. My address (the user wasn't very bright) was on the same line as
people like email@example.com. I sent a reply back to the user and Cc:'d
the postmaster address. Haven't heard back a word from either (not that I
really expect to hear from the user, of course). AOL is a for-profit business
that needs to clean up its public relations act.
|Edward J. Branley firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Seashell Software +1.504.455.5087 (voice)|
|3508 North Woodlawn Ave, Metairie, LA 70006 +1.504.455.8665 (bbs)|
From: email@example.com (Wes Morgan)