Re: post.office 3.0 Upgrade

Abdul Rehman Gani ( (no email) )
Mon, 19 May 1997 12:48:25 +0200

I am a current Post.Office 2.0 user and I cannot agree more with Randy. I
joined the Mailsite mailing list to get some info about this product before
deciding where to go. This is after waiting for two years for the mailing
list software.

Some time ago, a member of the nt-isp@emerald.iea.com mailing list
mentioned a site/article where the different NT based mail server were
compared (performance only, I think). Anybody have that address?

Apologies for duplicates generated by posting to both lists.

----------
> From: Rudy Komsic <rudyk@cyberglobe.net>
> To: ntisp@emerald.iea.com; Randy Martin <randy@austintx.net>
> Cc: mailsite-discuss@rockliffe.com
> Subject: Re: post.office 3.0 Upgrade
> Date: 19 May 1997 11:46

[useful info from Rudy deleted]
>
>
> ----------
> > From: Randy Martin <randy@austintx.net>
> > To: sales@software.com
> > Cc: ntisp@emerald.iea.com
> > Subject: post.office 3.0 Upgrade
> > Date: May 19, 1997 3:19 AM
> >
> > As an existing user of post.office, and as one of your earliest
customers,
> > I am not very pleased with the newly-announced upgrade policy. When I
> > purchased post.office in January of 1996, I purchased an UNLIMITED
mailbox
> > version of the program. The pricing for your product is one of the main
> > reasons that I decided to purchase post.office and not some other email
> > server.

Agreed!!

> >
> > Now, you're telling me that I must pay another $500 ($995 - $495) for
an
> > upgrade to a lesser product than I purchased in the first place! This
> > sounds like a DOWNGRADE to me -- and an expensive one at that!!

Hear hear!!

> >
> > Why would I want to do this? Just to throw $500 away for something less
> > than I have now? I don't think so!! This "upgrade" offer is an insult
to
> > all your existing customers. WE are the reason that you are still in
> > business! Don't you people get it? We went out on a limb in the
beginning,
> > invested $500 in a brand new product that was unproven at the time, and
> > kept you in business so that you could screw us over with this
outrageous
> > offer!
> >

I *am* insulted!

> > If you are trying to get rid of your existing customers, you are going
to
> > succeed beyond your wildest dreams! I am probably NOT going to purchase
the
> > upgrade to post.office. If I have to spend another $500 for an email
> > server, I'm going to spend it for one that has all the functionality
that I
> > need -- even if I have to pay a little more to get it. For about $875 I
can
> > get IMail from Ipswitch -- unlimited mailboxes, list server,
mail-to-fax,
> > mail-to-alphapager, complete web interface to email (not just the admin
> > part -- I mean reading and managing the mail via the web). Sounds like
a
> > MUCH better deal, doesn't it?? Why should I give you the $500 and get
> > screwed over?

I am another customer lost. It seems so obvious, keep customers by offering
competitive upgrades, lose them by offering downgrades at prices similar to
competing products... I wish some of my competitors would do the same :)

> >
> > I think a lot of your existing users are going to come the same
conclusion.
> > This slap-in-the-face to your existing customers, plus the fact that
we've
> > had to wait almost two years for the promised list server, plus your
lack
> > of responsiveness to the spamming problem in post.office is going to
lose
> > you a lot of customers.
> >
> > I'm really going to miss my post.office! I'm grown to really like the
> > program over the last year and a half. But, I'm not going to stand by
and
> > allow myself to get totally screwed by some half-witted marketing
decision
> > on your part.
> >

Agreed

Abdul