[X4U] Yes, we're back!

[Eric Prentice]

Hey Ed,

Fair questions. First of all, the lists aren't able to be our first  
priority and it took longer to dig into the problems than we hoped.  
Business these days seems to take a little more attention that it has  
in past years if you know what I mean. Then like I mentioned, when we  
started working on the issue, the machine they were running on  
completely died. We're thinking it was a power supply but we've not  
done a full autopsy on the old server yet.

Of course the timing of this whole thing was less than ideal, we were  
just launching new web store at drbott.com, our IT manager had a baby,  
etc.

So if we had been able to get a note out, we would have liked to do  
that but unfortunately when the issue is that the server won't process  
mail properly, it is hard to get messages out right?

Hopefully we'll be able to communicate better in the future but these  
lists are a bit of a hobby and won't likely be able to be first on the  
list any time soon.

The good news is that the new server software has some capabilities  
that will help keep it from spiraling out of control. Some simple auto- 
discard settings will allow it to clear out spam and rejected messages  
instead of letting them pile up until the machine slows to a crawl.

Eric



On Sep 15, 2009, at 9:25 PM, Ed Gould wrote:

>
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Eric Prentice wrote:
>
>> Hello List Members,
>> In case, you didn't notice, the lists at TheMacintoshGuy.com are  
>> back! ;-)
> ------------SNIP----------------
>
> Its nice to have the list active again. What I am not understanding  
> a bit is why, if you knew there were issues and were working on them,
> why did you not communicate with the list?
>
> It came across as when we did ask to the owner we were essentially  
> ignored. Having said that even a nod saying you were aware of the  
> issues and looking into them would have been fine. Instead we got  
> silence.
>
> A quick note would have been nice and telling us there were issues  
> was at the minimum that could have been done.
>
> Ed