A truly screwed up bug in Outlook '02, part II
From: Mark Guzowski (Guzowski_Mark@MSN.baz)
Date: 10/08/02
- Next message: Bill Sanderson: "Re: Vunerable Outlook?"
- Previous message: Ned Flanders: "Re: gohip.com"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Mark Guzowski" <Guzowski_Mark@MSN.baz> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:08:42 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> The perhaps bigger joke is msdn universal's means by which bugs can be
> reported/fixed. In my 3 years of owning msdn universal (which I'm
> dropping next year), I had finally used universal support a short
> while back, and boy does it suck...
Here's some of what I sent to microsoft during my, ahm, useless
attempt to use msdn universal support:
From: Mark Guzowski [Guzowski_Mark@MSN.com]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 8:34 PM
To: 'managers@microsoft.com'
Subject: Enterprise_Platforms_Case_Feedback
Jamal Zoubir
Re: SRX020816602460
The above is my first support event in three years of owning MSDN
Universal. To be blunt, I'm a bit shocked at the rather slipshod
manner in which the event has been handled. More than a week has
passed since I first submitted the details and I have yet to receive
anything of substance regarding the issue. In fact,
1. I received but one question by email, and only after my prompting - a question which arguably wasn't even germane to the
issue
2. Since then I received no updates of any kind, until I once again prompted.
The notion of providing timely updates, setting expectations accurately/correctly, etc. are issues which truly have nothing to do
with the underlying software development process and/or testing environment. I'm truly surprised that there seems to be arguably
no usage of such techniques in providing support to MSDN Universal subscribers. Many other large support orgs of various forms do
explicitly manage expectation correctly and accurately, as well as provide online updates, etc.
Providing value to customers can inevitably only help Microsoft employees - it is your stock/co. after all. I don't even want to
speculate if such support strategies (or lack thereof) is why certain articles seem to frequently surface in the news rags wrt
Microsoft security holes.
I offer the above in a truly helpful spirit. Best regards.
- -----
Mark Guzowski
Guzowski_Mark@MSN.com
eZine/Homepage: http://groups.msn.com/magWorks
This message has been digitally signed. Authenticity can be verified
upon request.
A few of the words I live by: "Live life day to day, on your own terms
(not someone else's). Set your own moral compass, let it not be set
for you. Define your own self worth, let it not be defined for you.
Your creativity (i.e., intellectual property) is yours to do with as
you please; in absence of an explicit agreement to the contrary
(signed by you) it is not for others to do with as they please."
About the email content: This email reflects my opinions. If the
content offends, and you are a member of law enforcement (e.g., local
police, fbi, nsa, or rcmp), first ask yourself if you have a legal
wiretap. If not, stop reading the email Ass. Otherwise, chill out -
they're only my opinions after all.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQA/AwUBPaM64tLK84BgYAPjEQJ1rACgjoqJ0d5NFTTs4BR47crfObxLElkAoMmU
n0TJOGVfAtgYRExhQytWeFRY
=aqVd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Next message: Bill Sanderson: "Re: Vunerable Outlook?"
- Previous message: Ned Flanders: "Re: gohip.com"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
