PowWeb enhancements

[B&T]

Here are the PowWeb enhancements I would like to see:

1) mail bounce option for addresses and the catch-all
2) show mail space used for each pop user (in ops)
3) mail auto-responder
4) SSL to work with pointed domain names

And one bug fix:

1) In ops, domain names I once registered but moved to a different registrar show up as errors. There seems to be no way to "refresh" the ops domain registration data.

That is a pretty short list. PowWeb keeps getting better, so the list gets shorter. But I do want to keep the list out thre so PowWeb knows what customers want to see.

[Mirzabah]

Originally posted by B&T
Here are the PowWeb enhancements I would like to see:

1) mail bounce option for addresses and the catch-allHave you tried configuring a mail address lately?4) SSL to work with pointed domain namesApparently there are some improvements planned for SSL - namely that you can use your own certificate (and hence, your own URL). This is very much in the "it won't happen overnight" category, so don't hold your breath.

[esccanada]

Not that I need it but I've seen enough discussions here to think it may be warranted.

How about something in the OPS panel to configure .htacess files?

It should clearly explain each option and it's ramifications. It should be intelligent enough to root out possible configuration problems before they occur.

I doubt that it would get implemented since Powweb doesn't officially support .htaccess but I though it worth mentioning anyway.

Cheers.

[B&T]

Originally posted by Mirzabah
Have you tried configuring a mail address lately?
Just went there. Still not an option. What are you saying?

[B&T]

Originally posted by Mirzabah
Apparently there are some improvements planned for SSL - namely that you can use your own certificate (and hence, your own URL). This is very much in the "it won't happen overnight" category, so don't hold your breath. That would be good also, but may be expensive. Just being able to use all your pointed names would be good.

[Mirzabah]

Originally posted by B&T
Just went there. Still not an option. What are you saying? See attached...

[mjp]

Originally posted by esccanada
How about something in the OPS panel to configure .htacess files? An .htaccess creation tool is currently being developed. Expect to see it in OPS in 30 - 60 days.

[B&T]

Originally posted by Mirzabah
See attached... What about it? I don't see anything that relates to the topic. Are you trying to show me the bit-bucket? That has been there for a long time.

[tbonekkt]

The Bit-Bucket isn't a bounce option; it simply deletes the email. I would like a true bounce option as well.

Now, it is possible to send the catchall to the bit-bucket and then stop it, but that generates a looping error message rather than the true desired bounce error.

[Mirzabah]

Oops. My bad.

[The Linguist]

I would like to see an easy way to delete users instead of just disabling and then waiting seven days which is what I was told by the help desk.

[Croc Hunter]

I want ice-cream... Oh.. umm.

I'd like to be able to transfer domains in OPS

[The Linguist]

Free ice-cream with every extra service... Mmmm that sounds good

[Croc Hunter]

Yummy!.

And hey.. can we stop the pm window hiding my status bar?.

[snowmaker]

I'd like the part in OPS that shows the last login to be expanded, to show the last week's worth, or the last ten logins or something.

And Ice Cream too, Ben & Jerry's please.

-bruce

[Skunkboy]

Powweb = do things with "strength in numbers"

With that in mind, I'll add my vote for bouncing. Actually, what I would like to do is along the lines of Yahoo's vacation response; where it can be set specially for mails from certain people/domains.


Wouldn't it be lovely to have it happen for April 2? Then, when one person in particular tries to send me a birthday message, I can have it bounce back as undeliverable. oh, how I can only dream.

[extras]

Originally posted by snowmaker
I'd like the part in OPS that shows the last login to be expanded, to show the last week's worth, or the last ten logins or something.

And Ice Cream too, Ben & Jerry's please.

-bruce

In addition to that, I want to see Failed login attempts.
I can track failed login attempt to my site by ErrorPage cgi
(I get LOUD alarm at my home when someone tries to access
protected area of my site. ),
but how about OPS, FTP, mail accounts?

With this, I will know if someone is trying to crack in.

[The Linguist]

Bounce is good. I'm currently using fastmail and if I get spam I just click the bounce button and it is gone. Usually never comes back.

[extras]

Wel...... I found that many SPAM mails have forged header.
And if you bounce them back, you are probably sending it back
to innocent victims...
(This is especially true for virus infected mails.)

Spammer's should be very happy to know that they get
extra Spamming exposure without any efforts.
They are nasty, aren't they?

Oh, also bouncing back may confirm that
your e-mail address is valid, thus you may be reworded
by having more value in SPAM list sold everywhere aroud the world....
You know, instead of enlisted in 0.2 cents/address el cheepo SPAM list,
now, you can be in the 0.5 cents/address reliable cadilac list they love!

(Note: the price of your e-mail address is given to illustrate
the value hike effect, and they are fictive.
Street value of given e-mail address may vary wildly.
I'm not familiar with that type of market)

[esccanada]

Ok how about fixing (as I suggested a couple of years ago) the CNAME function in OPS.

There are too many instances of individuals forgetting the required "." at the end of the host name. Having OPS look for this and add it if it's missing would be greatly beneficial and such a minor code addition. Heck you could even test to make sure there is only one.

---

As for the email bounce, I like it for emails that actually will bounce back to the intended sender but it's useless for most spam. Since spammers forge REPLY-TO and FROM headers, the bounce function would normally end up sending the bounce message to some poor innocent victim (ask me how many of these I get in a day!).

I don't think Powweb should implement this next technology just yet. It's still in its infancy but I would suggest that they seriously keep an eye on it. That innovation is Sender Policy Framework (SPF) (http://spf.pobox.com/).

Cheers.

[tbonekkt]

The bounce option is now available: http://forum.powweb.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=204074#post204074

[Skunkboy]

cool! now all I need is a way to bounce a specific e-mail address and I'll be all set. I want to keep my e-mail but if a certain person sends, I want to be able to kick it back to them and never receive it on my end.

but thanks for the bouncing ball PW

[Croc Hunter]

Originally posted by Skunkboy
..now all I need is a way to bounce a specific e-mail address and I'll be all set. I want to keep my e-mail but if a certain person sends, I want to be able to kick it back to them and never receive it on my end.. Mailwasher will do that Skunk and it's free:
http://www.mailwasher.net/

[B&T]

1) Great to have the bounce.

2) Can we get it for specific email addresses also? Just like the bit-bucket?

3) FYI - when PowWeb did this they deleted my catch-all that was going to the bit-bucket for all my domain names that had mail. Fine with me . . . but others may have had the bit-bucket there for a reason.

I can see both bounce and bit-bucket being useful for different reasons with different email addresses.

[tbonekkt]

Originally posted by B&T
2) Can we get it for specific email addresses also? Just like the bit-bucket? If the address isn't one you need, don't define it and it'll get the bounce.Originally posted by B&T
3) FYI - when PowWeb did this they deleted my catch-all that was going to the bit-bucket for all my domain names that had mail. Fine with me . . . but others may have had the bit-bucket there for a reason. Anyone that had the catchall going somewhere other than the bit-bucket did not have their catchall deleted.

[B&T]

Originally posted by tbonekkt
If the address isn't one you need, don't define it and it'll get the bounce. Ya' don't get it. You may want to only bounce ONE address, that say you want to turn off but let people know it is no longer valid. Just like you may want to bit-buket one address- and be incognito about it.

[tbonekkt]

Originally posted by B&T
Ya' don't get it. You may want to only bounce ONE address, that say you want to turn off but let people know it is no longer valid. Just like you may want to bit-buket one address- and be incognito about it. Reply here: http://forum.powweb.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=204103#post204103 :)

[B&T]

You didn't like out dual-thread thing going?

[tbonekkt]

Originally posted by B&T
You didn't like out dual-thread thing going? No! :D

[stagemaster]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... SpamAssassin (http://www.spamassassin.org/) !
Please Please Please Please Please Please.

[esccanada]

The spamassassin suggestion has been made for some time. It continues to fall on deaf ears.

Powweb is still stuck in the past when it comes to spam filtering. They continue to exclusively use blacklists which has it's own problems (which Powweb themselves have been the victim of).

The best solution, so far, is a combination of blacklists and spamassassin (bayesian filter).

There is NO perfect solution but that's the best so far. (As in you can't build anything idiot proof 'cause they'll just invent better idiots: You can't build anything spam-proof 'cause they'll just build better spammers).

I hate to sound like a broken record but I think it's important to stress this (and maybe finally get someone to listen). Eventually adding SPF to the blacklist/spamassassin mixture will further improve the filtering.

Cheers.

[Mirzabah]

No, the real problem is that they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Whatever spam policy they implement will cause a barrage of complaints from people who are finding that legitimate email is being bounced.

Of course, if they let customers turn spam filtering on or off in OPS, then a lot of these complaints would disappear altogether. That's the complaint that keeps falling on deaf ears.

[esccanada]

Maybe I should have expanded a bit.

That is exactly what was raised previously. Implement spamassassin / blacklist as a default option on accounts. It would be enabled by default and you would turn it off in OPS.

The configuration is a bit more involved but not much. I've done it for virtual accounts and it IS possible.

Cheers.

[stagemaster]

Originally posted by esccanada
Maybe I should have expanded a bit.

That is exactly what was raised previously. Implement spamassassin / blacklist as a default option on accounts. It would be enabled by default and you would turn it off in OPS.

The configuration is a bit more involved but not much. I've done it for virtual accounts and it IS possible.

Cheers. I agree, but just the opposite, put it in ops, but have it disabled by default, and when enabled, the user is warned of the possibility of missed mail. As long as you have the ability to redirect it to a "Spam" folder, I don't see what the big deal is.

They keep trying to push client side filtering, but I don't use a client-side mail program. I use webmail (SquirrelMail) exclusively. The BayesSpam plugin has helped quite a bit, but I think SpamAssassin would be the icing on the cake.

[esccanada]

Well we (those of us who are discussing this particular enhancement) are agreeing on the most part.

Again, the folder option was presented a while back.

However, I disagree with the default being that it is turned off.

I guess another enhancement would be a "wizard" that walks a new customer through an initial setup. One of these options would be to disable the spam filter or, if enabled, send spam to a folder.

The issue with sending it to a folder is that most users POP their mail. This is limited to the INBOX. Accessing the spam folder would require using webmail or IMAP. If you need a message tagged as spam, you'd have to go to webmail to get it (if not using IMAP). This is a minor issue as far as I'm concerned but I thought I'd bring it up.

Spamassassin can tag a message as well. I dislike marking up the subject line but mail apps like Outlook can't filter on the extra headers (X-SPAM???). Pegasus can deal with the headers though.

I wonder if perhaps we should open up a separate discussion just for this item?

[symo]

esccanada, gotta go with stagemaster on this one...

Should they have frontpage extensions enabled by default such that we have to opt out of them?

I want a list of things that I can add as benifits within my package, not a list of things that I have to delete because I don't see the benifit :)

I don't want spam filtering. That's me (but hey I'm the one in a straight jacket :eek: ). Others want it. That's them. The issue isn't whether spam should be filtered or not, it's rather having something imposed upon someone that doesn't want it. If one wants it, they can go to OPS and get it, just like one has to do for frontpage extensions, domain pointing, mysql database, etc.

Now I do agree that a server side solution would be the ultimate solution, but only if it is a solution that I have some control of and am required to actively say, "I want this.", by signing-up via opting IN.

symo

[The Linguist]

Originally posted by stagemaster
I use webmail (SquirrelMail) exclusively. The BayesSpam plugin has helped quite a bit, but I think SpamAssassin would be the icing on the cake.

How do I go about getting squirrel mail with my webmail? I used it at my last host and I would say that it is much better than the webmail we get here.

[esccanada]

Originally posted by symo
I want a list of things that I can add as benifits within my package, not a list of things that I have to delete because I don't see the benifit :)


I see your point and it's well stated but some default has to be made - one way or another.

That's why I raised the "wizard" option. That way the default is what the user decides.

P.S. No - Frontpage extensions shouldn't be enabled by default. They are insecure and therefore, in my opinion, shouldn't even be installed (See the recent hacking of websites as an example) :D

[tbonekkt]

Originally posted by The Linguist
How do I go about getting squirrel mail with my webmail? I used it at my last host and I would say that it is much better than the webmail we get here. You have to install it yourself.

Tutorial: http://help.powweb.com/tutorials/email/squirrelmail.php